Anthony v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14110 (E.D. Ca. Feb. 5, 2015).

Facts: In March 2012, Robert James Anthony ("Plaintiff") obtained a copy of his credit report and discovered credit card accounts he believed belonged to his son, Robert John Anthony ("Robert"). Plaintiff initially contended that Equifax mixed his credit file with Robert's credit file. Plaintiff alleged that Equifax's reinvestigations of his disputes were not in compliance with the FCRA and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCCRAA").

In July 2014, Equifax's expert determined that Robert had opened credit card accounts utilizing Plaintiff's personal identifiers. In August 2014, Equifax moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against Robert. The third-party complaint alleged that Equifax's reliance on Robert's false representations to the credit card companies was reasonable. Specifically, Equifax alleged that Equifax's reliance on Robert's fraudulent representations was reasonable because it resulted in an exact match of Plaintiff's name, address, social security number, and date of birth to the accounts at issue. As a result, the Court found that Equifax's third party claim was derivative and granted Equifax's Motion to Implead.

  • Third-Party Claim. A third-party claim may be asserted solely when the third-party's liability is in some way dependent on the outcome of the main claim and the third-party's liability is secondary or derivative. Plaintiff contended that Equifax's third-party claim was not derivative of the original claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 14, because the original claims for violations of the FCRA and the CCCRAA do not have more than an "attenuated" connection to Robert's liability to Equifax for fraud. However, the Court found that Equifax's third-party claim was derivative, because Equifax's reliance on Robert's false representations to the credit card companies was reasonable.
  • Third-Party Claim. In deciding whether to allow a third-party complaint, courts find it helpful to consider: 1) prejudice to the original plaintiff; 2) complication of issues at trial; 3) likelihood of trial delay; and 4) timeliness of the motion to implead. Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
  • Third-Party Claim. The Court agreed with Equifax's contention that Plaintiff was not prejudiced, because Plaintiff knew or should have known that the damage to Plaintiff's credit was the result of Robert's fraud. Furthermore, there was no need for additional discovery as Robert had already been deposed and the documents concerning the fraudulent accounts had been produced. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the allowing Equifax to file a third-party complaint against Robert.
  • Third-Party Claim. The Court further found that there would be no complication of issues at trial as the third-party claim of Robert's fraudulent activity was a necessary part of the litigation of the original claim. Equifax's reliance on Robert's fraudulent activity went to the heart of Equifax's claim that it acted in compliance with the FCRA and the CCCRAA. Furthermore, the Court noted that Robert's fraud would be litigated regardless of whether Equifax was permitting to file a third-party complaint. Accordingly, the Court found that factors for a motion to implead were satisfied.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.