Lita v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JETON LITA,
Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v. 25-cv-01165 (NJC) (ST)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
INC., EQUIFAX INC., and TRANSUNION,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
TISCIONE, United States Magistrate Judge:
On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff Jeton Lita (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Experian
Information Solutions Inc., Equifax Inc., and TransUnion LLC (collectively “Defendants”).
Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), filed July 11, 2025. For the
reasons discussed below, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court GRANT the
Motion and DISMISS the Complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
and for failure to state a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Moreover, “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). These requirements are designed to compel a plaintiff to
identify the relevant circumstances which he claims entitle him to relief in such a manner that the
defendant is provided with fair notice so as to enable him to answer and prepare for
Case 2:25-cv-01165-NJC-ST Document 26 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
trial. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988); see generally 5 Wright & Miller,
Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil, § 1217, at 166–78 (2d ed. 1990). However,
“[c]omplaints which ramble, which needlessly speculate, accuse and condemn, and which contain
circuitous diatribes far removed from the heart of the claim do not comport with these goals and
this system” and must be dismissed. Prezzi v. Berzak, 57 F.R.D. 149, 151
(S.D.N.Y.1972); accord Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 411 U.S. 935, 93 S.Ct. 1911, 36 L.Ed.2d 396 (1983); Chodos v. F.B.I., 559 F.Supp. 69,
71–72 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 697 F.2d 289 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1111, 103 S.Ct. 741,
74 L.Ed.2d 962 (1983).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. To survive such a motion, a complaint must contain sufficient facts
that, when accepted as true, state “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Aschroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim
is facially plausible when the factual allegations allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. In doing so, the Court must accept
the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff’s favor. See Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 944 F.3d 455, 458 (2d Cir. 2019).
However, allegations that “are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (“the
tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals
of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.”); Larsen v. Berlin Bd.
Case 2:25-cv-01165-NJC-ST Document 26 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of Educ., 588 F.Supp.3d 247, 256 (D. Conn. 2022) (“a court need not credit conclusory or
contradictory allegations.”).
DISCUSSION
The Court recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted as Plaintiff’s Complaint both
fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and fails to state a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s Complaint is virtually incomprehensible, riddled with arbitrary legal
references, and lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. As many Courts have held,
“sovereign-citizen type theories and ideology . . . are frivolous, irrational, unintelligible, and
ungrounded in American law.” United States v. Herbert, No. 22-CR-141S (1), 2024 WL 2972043,
at *3 (W.D.N.Y. June 13, 2024). Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, in that “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Indeed, dismissal is
warranted based on Plaintiff’s fanciful and unfounded legal theories alone. see, e.g., Fitzgerald v.
First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363–64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“district
courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required
filing fee”); Bayne v. Health Ins. Portability & Accountability Act, 2012 WL 119617, at *4
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2012) (collecting cases).
The Court, in attempting to discern Plaintiff’s Complaint, finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint
appears to claim that Defendants committed “Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Violations upon
Plaintiff.” Compl. at ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. The factual details supporting such a claim are virtually
nonexistent. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants are liable for “aggravated identity theft pursuant
to 18 U.S. Code § 1028A.” Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiff, in support of such an assertion provides that:
Plaintiff informed Defendants, that Plaintiff is aware consumer reporting agencies
may furnish consumer reports in accordance with the written instructions from the
consumer to whom it relates. Plaintiff demanded Defendants provide the written
instructions that Defendants received from Plaintiff which has authorized the
Case 2:25-cv-01165-NJC-ST Document 26 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
furnishing of these reports. If Defendants cannot provide these written instructions
by the Plaintiff prior to this notice then this has been a fraudulently made consumer
report using Plaintiff's identifying information, and that this shows proof of 15 U.S.
Code § 1681 b(a)(2) being violated by Defendants, which constitutes aggravated
identity theft pursuant to 18 U.S. Code§ 1028A.
Id. The Court, in examining such factual allegations in good faith, is unable to discern what
Plaintiff is saying at all. In fact, viewed in its best light, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains little
more than incessant assertions that Plaintiff informed Defendants of some arbitrary
constitutional provision or agency code, without any sort of factual reference to how
Defendants may have violated such provisions or codes. See generally Compl. Plaintiff’s
Complaint provides only conclusory, vague, and general factual allegations and thus
provides the Court with no adequate basis to make out the nature of Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, it is clear that the Complaint violates the basic tenet of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, i.e., that a defendant must be given adequate notice of his alleged
wrongdoing which would enable him to frame a defense. See Barsella v. United States,
135 F.R.D. 64, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Furthermore, Plaintiff, in his Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion, provides nothing of substance to elucidate his Complaint or even
contest Defendants’ arguments as to why Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed. See
generally Pl.’s Opp’n. In fact, the entirety of Plaintiff’s Opposition simply details the
procedural posturing of the case since the filing of the Complaint, which is of little import
to the matter at hand. Id.
While it is true that Plaintiff is pro se and that pro se complaints must be liberally
construed and all possible inferences must be drawn in favor of a pro se plaintiff; this policy
does not entail that a Court sustain every pro se complaint even if it is incoherent,
rambling, and unreadable. Id. (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594,
Case 2:25-cv-01165-NJC-ST Document 26 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989)). Therefore,
this Court recommends that the District Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and for failure to state
a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Court
GRANT Defendants’ Motion and DISMISS the Complaint.
OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file
written objections. Failure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of those objections
both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See Frydman
v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 743 F. App’x 486, 487 (2d Cir. 2018); McConnell v. ABC-Amega,
Inc., 338 Fed. Appx. 24, 26 (2d Cir. 2009); Tavarez v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-5141 (CS) (LMS),
2019 WL 1965832, at *30 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
SO ORDERED.
/s/
Steven Tiscione
United States Magistrate Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 4, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-01165-NJC-ST Document 26 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>