Wan v. Trans Union, LLC
1:22-cv-00115
| E.D.N.Y | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Joan Wan sued TransUnion, Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and JPMorgan Chase in state court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act after disputing fraudulent Chase credit-card charges that Chase treated as charged-off. The case was removed to federal court by TransUnion.
- Wan alleges she submitted disputes to the credit reporting agencies (CRAs), but they continued to report inaccurate, derogatory information based on Chase's verification.
- She claims harm to her otherwise positive credit, ‘limited credit opportunities,’ and emotional distress, and seeks statutory or actual damages, punitive damages, costs, interest, and fees.
- The district court issued show-cause orders after TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to test Article III standing; both sides responded but Wan declined a further opportunity to supplement her allegations.
- The court concluded Wan failed to allege a concrete injury under Article III and remanded the case to Kings County Supreme Court for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged damage to credit and ‘limited credit opportunities’ is a concrete injury | Wan: credit was harmed and her credit opportunities were limited by charged-off reporting | Defendants: allegations are speculative; no materialized or imminent substantial injury shown | Court: insufficient; vague credit harm without materialization or substantial imminent risk fails standing (citing Maddox) |
| Whether complaint sufficiently alleges disclosure of inaccurate reports to third parties | Wan: CRAs prepared and furnished consumer reports to third parties containing false information | Defendants: complaint lacks clear factual allegations about when, how, or to whom reports were disclosed | Court: insufficient; complaint fails to allege specific dissemination to third parties and plaintiff declined to supplement |
| Whether alleged emotional distress is a concrete injury | Wan: suffered severe anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment | Defendants: emotional harm pleaded perfunctorily and not plausibly extreme or demonstrable | Court: insufficient; conclusory emotional-distress allegations do not establish Article III injury (citing Maddox and In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases) |
Key Cases Cited
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (Supreme Court’s standing framework for statutory privacy/data dissemination harms)
- Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., 19 F.4th 58 (2d Cir. 2021) (concrete injury requires materialized harm or substantial, imminent risk)
- Harry v. Total Gas & Power N. Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2018) (complaint must clearly allege disclosure to third parties to establish cognizable injury)
- In re FDCPA Mailing Vendor Cases, 551 F. Supp. 3d 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (mere erroneous mailings and conclusory emotional-distress claims insufficient for Article III standing)