Allen v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JASON HENRY ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,
TRANS UNION LLC; FORD MOTOR
CREDIT COMPANY LLC; M2 LAW
GROUP P.C.; HOWELL & VAIL LLP;
MICHAEL J. ARCHIBALD; and
LISSETTE M. CARRERAS,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-00404-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jason Henry Allen is proceeding pro se. He has sued various defendants,
including Ford Motor Credit Company, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Ford filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses and
counterclaims for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and foreclosure of its
security interest in a 2020 Ford Explorer. In January 2026, the Court denied Allen’s
motion to dismiss Ford’s counterclaims, strike Ford’s affirmative defenses, and stay or
bifurcate Ford’s contract and foreclosure counterclaims. See Memorandum Decision and
Order, Dkt. 57. Allen now asks the Court to reconsider that decision. See Dkt. 58. In
addition, he has filed a separate, second motion to strike Ford’s affirmative defenses and
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 2
a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). See
Dkt. 61, 63. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny Allen’s motions.
ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Reconsider
Allen asks the Court to reconsider its order denying Allen’s motion to dismiss
Ford’s counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Rule 54(b) allows a
district court to revise an interlocutory order “at any time” before entry of a final
judgment under its inherent authority. City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica
Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). While a court has the power to revisit its own decision for any reason, it
“should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where
the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
In general, a court may grant a motion for reconsideration only upon four limited
grounds: (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2)
to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent manifest
injustice; or (4) if amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. See
Mendez v. Ada Cnty., No. 1:21-CV-00447-BLW, 2023 WL 2333401, at *1 (D. Idaho
Mar. 1, 2023) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)).
“A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court
had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 3
Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Arguments
that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be directed to the court of
appeals.” Id.
Allen fails to reach the high standard for this Court to reconsider its prior ruling.
Allen’s core argument is that the Court committed clear error by improperly crediting
Ford’s allegations that it rejected Allen’s payments under the Federal Rule 12(b)(6)
framework. He maintains that the paid-in-full letter sent by Ford, the release of its lien,
and the issuance of title to Allen make it implausible that Ford rejected Allen’s payments
and still retains its security interest in the Ford Explorer. He also argues that the Court
erred in finding the economic loss rule does not bar Ford’s fraud claim.
But the Court considered these very documents and arguments in its prior ruling
and concluded that Ford’s counterclaims are plausible because Ford alleges the
documents were issued in reliance on Allen’s fraudulent payments—payments that were
never actually received. See Dkt. 57 at 9. Similarly, the Court properly considered and
rejected Allen’s argument that the economic loss rule bars Ford’s counterclaim for fraud
because Idaho’s economic loss rule does not apply to intentional torts like fraud. Taylor
v. Taylor, 422 P.3d 1116, 1125 (Idaho 2018). Simply reaching a different conclusion than
Allen wanted is not error.
As for the new arguments Allen raises for the first time in his reply brief—
including that Ford’s counterclaims are not compulsory under Rule 13(a) and should be
dismissed from this action entirely—nothing prevented Allen from raising these
arguments in his original motion. A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 4
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890
(9th Cir. 2000). Further, given Allen raised these arguments for the first time in his reply
brief, the Court need not consider them. See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th
Cir. 2007) (courts generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief). Accordingly, the Court will deny Allen’s motion to reconsider.
B. Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
Allen also moves to strike Ford’s affirmative defenses for a second time. He filed
this motion two days after the Court denied his first motion to strike those same defenses.
The Court has already had its say on this matter: “Striking negative defenses serves no
practical purpose because doing so will not eliminate issues from the case or preclude
Ford from arguing them.” See Dkt. 57 at 11. The Court also found that Ford’s defenses
eleven and twelve “provide sufficient notice when read with the factual allegations in
Ford’s Answer and Counterclaim,” and that “[g]ranting a ‘hyper-technical and
inconsequential motion to strike runs counter to the purpose of Rule 8’ and ‘diverts
resources from substantive litigation.’” Id. Allen has not presented any new arguments or
evidence that would change this analysis. His motion to strike these defenses is therefore
denied.
C. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Finally, Allen moves for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), seeking
declarations that (1) Ford is a furnisher of information subject to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b);
(2) Ford received notice of Allen’s disputes through Automated Consumer Dispute
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 5
Verifications (“ACDVs”); (3) Ford’s statutory duties were triggered upon receipt of that
notice; and (4) Ford’s counterclaim does not bar Allen’s FCRA claims. A Rule 12(c)
motion is only proper when there are no material issues of fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists
v. Seventh Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989). On
such a motion, the Court must accept all of the non-moving party’s allegations as true and
construe them in the light most favorable to that party.
Allen’s motion runs into a basic problem: Ford disputes the very allegations Allen
seeks to establish. In its Answer, Ford denied that Allen’s characterization of its furnisher
status constitutes anything more than a legal conclusion. Ford admitted only that it
“received some Automated Consumer Dispute Verifications regarding Allen’s account,”
while denying the remainder of Allen’s allegations concerning the scope and content of
those ACDVs. Ford also denied that its statutory duties were triggered as Allen alleges.
These denials create genuine disputes that cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone.
Furthermore, Ford has asserted affirmative defenses that, if proven, could defeat Allen’s
claims. Under Seventh-Day Adventists, that is enough to bar judgment on the pleadings.
887 F.2d at 230. Allen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings must therefore be denied.
See Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 887 F.2d at 230.
While the Court is mindful that Allen is proceeding without counsel and is entitled
to liberal construction of his filings, the Court has now addressed multiple rounds of
motions practice on overlapping issues. The Court reminds Allen that serial motions
rehashing arguments the Court has already considered and rejected waste judicial
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 5 of 6

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER - 6
resources and risk running afoul of the Court’s prior admonition regarding Rule 11. See
Dkt. 57 at 7 n.2.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Objection and Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 58) is DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses Asserted by
Defendant Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (Dkt. 61) is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Against Ford Motor Credit
Company LLC (Dkt. 63) is DENIED.
DATED: May 18, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00404-BLW Document 80 Filed 05/18/26 Page 6 of 6