Ward v. Comenity Bank et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NATASHA WARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMENITY BANK, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-cv-01952
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jonathan D. Greenberg
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Natasha Ward filed a complaint against seven Defendants alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 1.) On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff
moved to dismiss Defendant Lending Club Bank with prejudice. 	(ECF No. 9.) 	On
October 	17, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	moved 	to 	dismiss 	Defendant 	Affirm, 	Inc. 	without
prejudice. (ECF No. 10.) On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff moved to dismiss Defendants
Kay Jeweler’s and Comenity Bank with prejudice. 	(ECF No. 12; ECF No. 13.) 	On
October 23, 2025, Plaintiff moved to dismiss Defendant Experian Information
Solutions with prejudice. 	(ECF No. 14.) 	On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved to
dismiss Defendant Capital One Bank NA with prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) On December
22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant Equifax
Information Services, LLC. (ECF No. 17.)
Rule 21 provides that the Court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 	Unless the parties agree otherwise, the Court generally
drops a party under Rule 21 without prejudice. See Michaels Bldg. Co. v. Ameritrust
Case: 1:25-cv-01952-JPC Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/24/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Co. N.A., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988). 	Here, Plaintiff moves to dismiss
Defendants 	Lending 	Club 	Bank, 	Kay 	Jeweler’s, 	Comenity 	Bank, 	Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., and Capital One Bank NA with prejudice. 	(ECF No. 9;
ECF No. 12; ECF No. 13; ECF No. 14; ECF No. 15.) Dismissal of a party under Rule
21 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 	Hiller v. HSBC Fin.
Corp., 589 F. App’x 320, 321 (6th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Sutherland v.
Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 344 F.3d 603, 612 (6th Cir. 2003)). Based on the Court’s
review of the record, and the failure of any party to object, the Court sees no reason
not to dismiss Defendants Lending Club Bank, Kay Jeweler’s, Comenity Bank,
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Capital One Bank NA with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a proposed notice of dismissal with prejudice for Defendant
Equifax Information Services, LLC under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 17.) Because
Defendant Equifax Information Services never appeared in the litigation, the notice
is self-executing under the Rule.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions DISMISSING Defendants
Lending Club Bank, Kay Jeweler’s, Comenity Bank, Experian Information Solutions,
and Capital One Bank WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 9; ECF No. 12; ECF No. 13;
ECF No. 14; ECF No. 15), GRANTS the motion DISMISSING Defendant Affirm,
Inc. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 10), DISMISSES Defendant Equifax
Information Services, LLC WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 17), and closes this case.
SO ORDERED.
Case: 1:25-cv-01952-JPC Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/24/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Dated: December 23, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:25-cv-01952-JPC Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/24/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>