Penningroth v. Experian Information Solutions Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ian Penningroth,
Plaintiff,
v.
Experian 	Information 	Solutions
Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02130-PHX-SMM
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.’s
(“LexisNexis”) Second Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.
88). The Motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 88; 94; 97). For the following reasons, the Court
grants LexisNexis’ Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ian Penningroth alleges that his mortgage application was denied because
his credit reports indicated that some of his accounts were reporting social security
numbers that did not belong to him. (Doc. 94 at 4). On or about May 13, 2024, pursuant
to his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681(g),
Plaintiff requested a copy of hid consumer file from LexisNexis via its online platform
(Id.) LexisNexis did not send Plaintiff a copy of his consumer file because LexisNexis
allegedly could not authenticate Plaintiff’s identity. (Doc. 88 at 5). Plaintiff contends that
he provided LexisNexis “with his full name, SSN, a copy of his driver’s license and a
copy of his passport.” (Doc. 94 at 4). However, LexisNexis contends that Plaintiff
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 7

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provided no verification documents. (Doc. 88 at 5).
Plaintiff further contends that on or about July 31, 2024, he again requested his
LexisNexis consumer file by mail with a copy of his Social Security card and his driver’s
license but did not receive a copy of his consumer file because LexisNexis could not
verify his identity. (Doc. 94 at 4). However, LexisNexis contends that the address listed
on Plaintiff’s driver’s license did not match the current address and Plaintiff did not
provide verification documents showing his current address. (Doc. 88 at 5).
On 	February 	7, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	contends 	that 	he 	requested 	his 	LexisNexis
consumer file for a third time by mail with copies of his driver’s license and Social
Security but did not receive his consumer file. (Doc. 94 at 4). However, LexisNexis
contends that it mailed Plaintiff his requested consumer file on March 7, 2025, which
shows that no May or June 2024 report was submitted to Capital One, no May 13, 2024
report to Bell Bank, and there was no social security number variation. (Doc. 88 at 6).
On January 9, 2026, this Court granted LexisNexis’ Motion to Dismiss and
allowed Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 75). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc.
83) and LexisNexis subsequently filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 88).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
challenges the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Federal courts are of
limited jurisdiction, and “Article III of the Constitution confines the jurisdiction of
federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602
U.S. 367, 378 (2024). “To establish standing, … a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she
has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely was caused or
will be caused by the defendant, and (iii) that the injury likely would be redressed by the
requested judicial relief.” Id. at 368.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Defendant LexisNexis moves to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s allegations against it for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. 88). For the
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 7

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
following reasons, the Court grants the Motion. (Id.)
A. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant LexisNexis contends that Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete injury to
establish Article III standing. (Id. at 7). In response, Plaintiff contends that Defendant
LexisNexis’ harm to Plaintiff’s privacy interests is sufficient to confer Article III
standing. (Doc. 94 at 6).
“To establish standing, … a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she has suffered or
likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely was caused or will be caused
by the defendant, and (iii) that the injury likely would be redressed by the requested
judicial relief.” Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 368. “Where, as here, a case is at the
pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly. . .allege facts demonstrating’ each element.”
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citation omitted). “Congress cannot
erase Article III’s standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a
plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing.” Id. at 339. (citations omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a two-step framework to determine whether alleged
violations of the FCRA are sufficiently concrete to confer standing: “(1) whether the
statutory provisions at issue were established to protect [a plaintiff’s] concrete interests
(as opposed to purely procedural rights), and if so, (2) whether the specific procedural
violations alleged in this case actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such
interests.” Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2017).
Regarding the first prong, the Ninth Circuit has already held that § 1681g was
established to protect a plaintiff’s concrete rights in fair and accurate credit reporting and
consumer privacy. 	See Tailford v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 26 F.4th 1092, 1099–100
(9th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, Plaintiff satisfies the first prong of the Ninth Circuit’s
FCRA standing analysis.
As to the second prong, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain
sufficient allegations of non-disclosure of information under § 1681g to “present a
material risk of harm.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 342. Plaintiff must allege “more than a bare
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 7

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
procedural violation of the statute that is ‘divorced from’ the real harms that FCRA is
designed to prevent.” Robins, 867 F.3d at 1115 (citations omitted).
The Supreme 	Court 	distinguishes the second prong of 	the 	standing inquiry
between “(i) credit files that consumer reporting agencies maintain internally and (ii) the
consumer credit reports that consumer reporting agencies disseminate to third-party
creditors.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 434 (2021). A plaintiff will not be
able to show a concrete injury simply by alleging that a consumer-reporting agency failed
to comply with one of FCRA’s procedures.” Spokeo, 867 F.3d at 1115-116. “The mere
presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party,
causes no concrete harm.” Ramirez, 594 U.S. at 434.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant LexisNexis violated § 1681g of the
FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff a copy of his consumer file. (Doc. 94 at 8).
However, 	LexisNexis 	contends 	that 	Plaintiff 	failed 	to 	establish 	a 	concrete 	and
particularized injury because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint only alleges harm related to
his 	inability 	to 	obtain 	a 	copy 	of 	his 	LexisNexis 	consumer 	file. 	(Doc. 	88 	at 	9).
Specifically, LexisNexis notes that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint no longer alleges that
LexisNexis had anything to do with his mortgage or credit card denial, that the file had
any inaccuracies or social security number variation, nor any allegations that information
was missing in the consumer file. (Id.)
LexisNexis also contends that Plaintiff does not allege that anyone identified
LexisNexis as a possible source of inaccurate social security number reporting, and that
Plaintiff was merely “worried” that LexisNexis had an inaccurate social security number
on file and “believed” he was mixed with another consumer. (Id. at 11; Doc. 83 at 12). In
response, Plaintiff contends he was left to wonder who had accessed his personal
information and was “robbed” of the ability to identify potential inaccuracies and the
extent any potential inaccuracies were at risk of being disclosed to third parties. (Doc. 94
at 8).
Plaintiff also alleges that LexisNexis’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff a copy of
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 7

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
his consumer file prevented him from identifying potential identity theft and opting out of
future “promotional” inquiries. (Doc. 83 at 19). In response, LexisNexis contends that
Plaintiff’s 	alleged 	harm 	is 	a 	“purely 	speculative” 	and 	“abstract 	harm 	that 	is 	not
cognizable in federal court.” (Doc. 88 at 10).
The Court finds that Plaintiff does not have standing to pursue its claims against
LexisNexis. The Supreme Court has already held that a plaintiff lacks Article III standing
when “[t]he mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed
to a third party, causes no concrete harm.” Ramirez, 594 U.S. at 434; see also Bassett v.
ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 883 F.3d 776, 783 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of a
complaint for lack of standing when a plaintiff’s “theory of ‘exposure’ to identity theft is.
. . ‘too speculative for Article III purposes. . . .’ and “private information was not
disclosed to anyone. . .”).
In this case, Plaintiff makes no allegations in his Amended Complaint that
LexisNexis disseminated his consumer report to any third-party or that any of the
information 	in 	his 	consumer 	file 	was 	inaccurate. 	(See 	Doc. 	83). 	Plaintiff 	merely
complains about possible dissemination of inaccurate information in the future. (Id. at
19). Further, Plaintiff does not challenge LexisNexis’ evidence that it mailed Plaintiff a
copy of his consumer file on March 7, 2025, more than three months before Plaintiff
commenced this lawsuit. (Doc. 88 at 6). LexisNexis also contends, and Plaintiff does not
challenge, that the disclosure showed that LexisNexis did not make a May or June 2024
report to Capital One, nor a May 13, 2024 report to Bell Bank, nor was there any social
security number variation. (Id.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his claim that LexisNexis failed to
provide him with a copy of his consumer file because he does not allege a “material risk
of harm.” Robins, 867 F.3d at 1113; see also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S.
488, 496 (2009) (“deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is
affected by the deprivation ... is insufficient to create Article III standing”).
B. No Leave to Amend
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 5 of 7

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Court already granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint after granting
LexisNexis’ First Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 75 at 6). However, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint still fails to establish Article III standing, and the Court finds that Plaintiff
cannot cure the deficiencies in his Amended Complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a
complaint can possibly be saved.”). Moreover, “where the plaintiff has previously been
granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to
[his] claims, the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.”
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Further, 	any 	amendments 	would 	likely 	be 	futile. 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	explain
specifically how he would plausibly amend the complaint to confer standing nor does
Plaintiff request leave to amend. (See Doc. 94); Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (when a plaintiff does not “propose any specific
allegations that might rectify [its] failure [to establish Article III standing]. . .[it]
demonstrat[es] [ ] [a plaintiff’s] inability ... to make the necessary amendment.”). Thus,
the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint against LexisNexis with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant LexisNexis’ Second Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Doc. 88).
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	dismissing 	all 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	against
Defendant LexisNexis with prejudice. (Doc. 83).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant LexisNexis may file an application
for attorney’s fees and costs on or before May 15, 2026.
///
///
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 6 of 7

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 10th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02130-SMM Document 100 Filed 04/10/26 Page 7 of 7