D istri ct Ju d g e Je dS . R ak o ff of the U n ited S tates D istri ct C o u rtfor the S o u thern * D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y ork, s i tt i ng by des i gnat i on. 08 - 39 88 - c v( L) , 09 - 43 09 - c v( X A P) T ran s U n io n L L C v . L in d o r UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RECE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED O N O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CTR ON I C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta st at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 22 day of Sept ember , tw o thous and t en. nd P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

DE BR A ANN L I VINGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF, * D is tr i ct Judge .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- T R A N S U N IO N L L C ,

D ef endant

-Appel lant- C r os s -Appel lee , v . N o s. 0 9 -39 8 8 -cv (L ), 09 - 43 09 - c v( X A P) RACHEL LINDO R, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lee- C r os s -Appel lant .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - - - - --- - A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : T IM O T H Y P . C R E E C H (M a rk E . K o g a n , on the bri ef ), K o g a n , T ric h o n & W e rth e im e r, P .C ., Phi l adelphi a, Penns yl vani a. A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L E E : K E V IN C . M A L L O N (J a m e s B . F is h m a n , on the2 br i ef ) , Fi s hm an & M al l on, LL P, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (B ri a n M . C o g a n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed on Sept ember18, 2009, is AF F I RMED . T h is a p p e a l a rise s fro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f p lain tiff R a c h e l L in d o r’s F a ir C r edi tR eport i ng A ct( “FC R A ”) , 15 U . S. C . § 1681 ets eq. , cl ai m s as barr ed by the s t atut e of lim itatio n s. D e fe n d a n t T ra n s U n io n L L C ap p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n d e c lin in g to ret ai n sup plem entalj uri sdi ct i on overL i ndor ’ s r el at ed s t at e l aw cl ai m s. L i nd or cr oss- app eal s, a rg u in g tha t dis m iss a l of the F C R A cla im s w a s im p ro p e r. W e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ fa m ili a rity w ith th e fa c ts a n dthe rec o rd o f p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re fe re n c e o n ly a s n e c e ss a ry to e x p la in o u r d e c is io n to a ff irm . 1. St atut e of

L i m i t at i ons Li n d o rc h a l l e n g e s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a t–a s a ma tt e ro f l a w –h e rF CRA cl ai m s ar e barr ed by the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . She s ubm i t s thats he has r ai s ed a tr i abl e i s s ue of

f actas t o the r eas onabl enes s of herbel i ef

, pr i ort o D ece m ber22, 2006, or J anuary 16, 2007, thatheri dent i ty had been st ol en and thatthe cha l l enged j udgm ent ther ef or e bel onged t o her . W e di s agr ee and a f f i rm f ors ubs t ant i al l y the r eas ons s t at ed by the3

d i s tr i c tc o u rti n i t s th o r o u g h a n dwe l l - r e a s o n e dd e c i s i o n . S e e L i n d o rv . T r a n s Un i o n LL C, N o . 0 8 C iv. 51 4 3 (E . D . N . Y . S ep t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ). A n FC R A act i on mustbe br ought“ notl at erthan the ear l i erof – ( 1) 2 year s af

t erthe d ate o f disco v ery b y th e p lai n ti ff o f th e v iolati o n th at i s the b asis for su ch li ab il ity ; or (2) 5 year s af t er the date on w hi ch the vi ol at i on thati s the bas i s f ors uch l i abi l i ty occur s . ” 15 U . S. C . § 1681p. E ven as s um i ng, a s the di s tr i ctc ourtdi d, thatthe phr as e “di s covery by the plai nt i f f of the vi ol at i on” r equi r es actual know l edge of the vi ol at i on, L i ndorhas not i dent i f i ed any m at er i al di f

f er ence betw een the f

act s s he pos s es s ed on orbef or e D ece m ber4, 2006, and thos e s he pos s es s ed on D ece m ber22, 2006, and J anuary 16, 2007, the dat es s he co n tend s the statu te of li m it ati o n s b eg an to ru n . B y D e c e m b er 4 , 2 0 0 6 , L ind o r w as a w are th a t (1 ) T ra n s U n io n h a dp lac e da ju d g m e n t on h e r cr e d it re p o rt b a se do n a d e b t sh e a lleg e d ly ow ed t o A T & T W i r el es s ; ( 2) s he had neverha d a n acc ountw i th A T & T ; ( 3) the s pel l i ng of the jud g m en t d eb tor’s f ir st n am e w as d if

feren t from L ind o r’s; (4) th e jud g m e n t d eb tor’s s oci al s ecur i ty num berdi d notm at ch Li ndor ’ s ; and ( 5) T r ans U ni on w as r ef us i ng t o r emove the j udgm entf

r om L i ndor ’ s cr edi tr eportbecaus e i thad al l egedl y ve r i f i ed thatthe j udgm ent bel onged t o herand ther ef or e cons i der ed herchal l enge f r i vol ous . A l though, on D ece m ber 22, 2006, co un s elf

orthe j udgm entcr edi t oradvi s ed Li ndorthathe thoughtthe cha l l enged j ud gmen twas , i nd e e d, a ga i ns tad i f f e r e ntp e r s on a ndr e i t e r a t e d thi s v i e w i n a l e tt e rdat ed J anuary 16, 2007, thes e eve nt s pr ovi ded Li ndorw i th no new f actual i nf

orm at i on. T o the c o n tra ry , the re p re se n tatio n s m a d e b y th e a tto rn e y w e re o p in io n s in fo rm e db y th e v e ry fa c ts4

tha twer e a l r e a dy i n Li nd or ’ s p os s e s s i on . Li nd orc i t e s n o autho r i ty, a ndwe ar e aw ar e of n o n e , p e rm itt in g a p a rty to d isc laim a c tu a l kn o w led g e o f a v io latio n w h e re th a t p a rty pos s es s es al l of

the mat er i al f

act s nece s s ary t o i dent i f y a vi ol at i on . C f. U nit ed St at es v. K a ise r, 6 0 9 F .3 d5 5 6 , 5 6 4 (2 dC ir. 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ [I ]f th e re w a s c o n sc io u s a v o id a n c e , tha t is d eli b era te failu re to lea rn in form ati o n , then that is th e e q u ivalen t of ac tual kn o w ledg e . . . . ”); U ni t ed St at es v. A i na- M ar s hal l , 336 F. 3d 167, 170 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( obs ervi ng thatcons ci ous avoi dance doctr i ne i s i m pl i cat ed w her e “adef endantas s ert s the l ack of s om e s peci f

i c as pect of know l edge r equi r ed f

orconvi ct i on, and . . . the appr opr i at e f actual pr edi cat e f

orthe char ge exi s t s , i . e. , the ev i den ce i s s uch thata r at i onal j ur orm ay r eac h the conc l us i on beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as aw ar e of

a hi gh pr obabi l i ty of

the f acti n di s put e and co n scio u sly a v o ided co n fi rm ing that fac t” (i n terna l cit ati o n a n dq u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). B e c a u se th a t is p re c ise ly w h a t o c c u rre dh e re , w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t th e sta tu te o f l im it ati o n s o n L ind o r’s F C R A c lai m s b eg an to ru n b efo re D ec em b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 . L ind o r’s FC R A cl ai m s f

i l ed on D ece m ber22, 2008, w er e ther ef or e pr oper l y di s m i s s ed as unt i m el y. 2. E qui t abl e Tol l i ng E qual l y unavai l i ng i s L i ndor ’ s cont ent i on thatherunt i m el y cl ai m s ar e saved by equ i t able t oll i ng . “E qu i t able t oll i ng is a rar e rem edy to be app l i ed in unu sual ci rcum st ances, nota cur e- al l f

oran ent i r el y comm on s t at e of af f ai r s . ” W al l ace v. K at o, 549 U . S. 384, 396 (20 0 7 ). A cc o rdin g ly, w e a p p ly the d o ctri n e o n ly u p o n a sh o w ing that “e x tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s p re v e n ted a p a rty fro m tim e ly p e rfo rm in g a re q u ire da c t, an dth a t th e p a rty5

act ed w i th r eas onabl e di l i gence thr ough ou tthe per i od [ s ] he [ s ought ] t o t ol l . ” W al kerv. J as tr emski , 430 F. 3d 560, 564 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( s econd a l t er at i on i n or i gi nal ; i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) . H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtconcluded that , even a s s um i ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng ap p li ed to F C R A claim s, su ch reli ef w as n o t w arran ted in L ind o r’s c ase b ec au se “ there [w e re ] n o f

a c ts . . . c o n c e rn in g [h e r] f a ilu re to fi le th a t [c o u ld ] b e c o n s id e re d‘s p e c ia l’ . . . , l etal one ‘ extr aor di nary. ’ ” L i ndorv. T r ans U ni on L L C , N o. 08 C i v. 5143, s l i p op. at21 (E .D .N .Y . S e p t. 16 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h is d e term in a tio n m a n ife sts n o ab u se o f d isc re tio n . S e e Z e rilli E del gl as s v. N . Y . C i ty T r ans i tA uth. , 333 F. 3d 74, 81 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( r evi ew i ng di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d e n ial o f ap p lica tio n fo r e q u itab le to lli n g fo r a b u se o f d isc re tio n ). T h e o n ly j us t i f i cat i ons L i nd orof

f er ed f orthe unt i m el y f

i l i ng w er e thats he thought( 1) thatthe j udgm entl i s t ed on he rc r edi tr eportr es ul t ed f r om i dent i ty thef

ta nd noterroron T r ans U ni on’ s part , and ( 2) thatT r ans U ni on w oul d nothave l i s t ed the j udgm enti f the j udgm ent w er e nother s . O n thi s r ecor d, the di s tr i ctc ourta ct ed w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n concludi ng that “[ t ] his i s an or di nary cas e of a pl ai nt i f

f m i s s i ng the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . ” Li ndorv. T ran s U n ion L L C , N o . 0 8 C iv. 51 4 3 , slip o p . at 21 (E . D . N . Y . S ep t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ). 3 . Di s mi s s a l o f

S t a t e La w Cl a i ms T r ans U ni on does notdi s put e thatw her e a di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s es apl ai nt i f f’ s f eder al cl ai m s , i tact s w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o exer ci s e s up plem entalj ur i s di ct i on o v er a n y rem ainin g stat e law claim s. S ee P u rg e ss v . S h arro ck , 3 3 F . 3 d1 3 4 , 1 3 8 (2d C ir . 1994) ( not i ng thatw her e f eder al cl ai m s i n act i on pre m i s ed on f eder al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on6

“ a re d ism iss e db e fo re trial, e v e n th o u g h n o t in su b sta n tial in a ju risd ictio n a l se n se , th e sta te cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed as w el l ” ( i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on m arks om i tt ed) ) . N everthel es s , T r ans U ni on ar gues thatdi s m i s s al of L i ndor ’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s w as i m pr operbecaus e the al l egat i ons i n the com pl ai ntand a s t i pul at i on i n the part i es ’ j oi ntpr etr i al or deres t abl i s hed non- di s cr et i onary di ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on overthe cl ai m s . W e ar e notper s uaded. S u b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o rd in a rily m u st b e e sta b lish e da t th e tim e a n a c tio n is co m m en ce d . S ee G rup o D ataflux v . A tl as G lob al G rou p , L . P . , 5 4 1 U . S . 5 6 7 , 5 7 4 -75 (20 0 4 ). I n D ur ant , N i chol s , H ous t on, H od gson & C ort es e- C os t a, P. C . v. D upont , 565 F. 3d 56 ( 2d C i r . 2009) , how ever , w e hel d thatbecaus e the exi s t ence of di vers i ty j ur i s di ct i on does not d e p e n do n a c o mpl a i n t ’ s c o mp l i a n c e wi th th e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n t s s e tf o rth i n F e d . R. C iv. P. 8(a )(1), “w h ere the fa cts n ec essa ry to the e stab li sh m en t of d iversity jurisdicti o n are s u b s e q u e n t l y d e t e rm i n e dt o h a v e o b t a i n e da l l a l o n g , af e d e r a l c o u rtm a y . . . a l l o w a c o m p lai n t t o b e a m en d ed to as sert th o se n ec essa ry fa cts, ” id. at 64 (ell ipsis i n o ri g inal; i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ; acc or d H err i ck C o. v. S C S C om m c’ ns , Inc . , 251 F. 3d 315, 329 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ; s ee al s o J acobs v. Pat entEnf or cementFund, I nc. , 230 F. 3d 565, 568 ( 2d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ [W ]e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e fe c t in p la in tif fs ’ p lea d in g s d o e s n o t n e g a te j ur i s di ct i on and that , s i nce i thas been e s t abl i s hed thatthe r equi s i t e di ver s i ty exi s t ed atthe t i m e of the i ni t i al pl eadi ng s, d efendantH R C w as bound t o ans w erthe compl ai nt , and the jud g m en t of d efa u ltthat issue do n it s fail u re to d o so is n o t vo id fo r lack o f j u ri sd ict ion . ”). U n li k e the plainti ff in D u ran t, see 5 6 5 F . 3 dat 61 , L ind o r – w h o se c o m p lai n t did n o t pu rpo rtA l though L i ndor ’ s compl ai ntal l eges thats he i s “an a dul tr es i dentof the St at e and 1 C i ty of N ew Y ork, ” an d that “Tr ans U ni on i s a D el aw ar e corpor at i on, . . . qual i f i ed t o do bus i nes s i n the St at e of

N ew Y ork, ” the compl ai ntdoes notcont ai n any al l egat i ons r egar di ng T r ans U ni on’ s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s . Forthi s r eas on, the f actual all egat i ons i n the compl ai ntar e i ns uf

f i ci entt o supportdi ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 1332( c) ( not i ng th a t fo r p u rp o se s o f d iv e rsity jur isd ictio n , c o rp o ra tio n is de e m e dto b e citize n o f b o th its sta te o f i n co rpo rati o n an dstat e o f i ts princip al plac e o f bu sine ss). 7 t o al l ege di ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on – neverm oved pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1 65 3 t o amend her compl ai ntt o m ake the al l egat i ons r equi r ed t o s upports uch j ur i s di ct i on. N ordi d the di s tr i ct 1 courtf i nd thatf

act s es t abl i s hed dur i ng the cour s e of the pr ocee di ngs demonstr at ed that di ver s i ty j ur i s di ct i on e xi s t ed al l a l ong s uch thatLi ndorc oul d be di r ect ed t o a m end the c o m p la in t. S e e J a c o b s v . P a te n t E n fo rc e m e n t F u n d , In c ., 2 3 0 F .3 da t 5 6 8 . W hi l e Trans U ni on cont ends thatthe part i es ar e bound by a s t i pul at i on i n thei rj oi nt pretri al order s t at i ng that the d i str ictcou rtw ou l d ret ai n d i versi ty jur i sdi ct i on ov er the case i f the f eder al cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed, T r ans U ni on f ai l ed t o a dvi s e the courtof thats t i pul at i on – much l es s thati tw ant ed the s t i pul at i on e nf or ced – w hi l e the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent w as pendi ng. D ur i ng ar gum enton the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed thati tw as unl i kel y t o r et ai n s uppl ement alj ur i s di ct i on overL i ndor ’ s s t at e clai m s i f her fe d e ra l cla im s w e re d ism iss e d . T ra n s U n io n ’s o n ly o bjec tio n , h o w e v e r, w a s th a t th e sta te cl ai m s w ould eventual l y be r eturned t o f eder al courton acc ountof T r ans U ni on’ s r i ghtof r emoval . I tw as notunt i l T r ans U ni on m oved t o al t eroramend the Sept ember18, 2009 ju d g m e n t, s e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 (e ), th a t it s o u g h t to e n fo rc e th e jo in t p re tr ia l s tip u la tio n . W e di s cern no abus e of

di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ctc ourt ’ s r ej ecti on of thi s bel at ed ar gum ent . N or8

d o w e id e n tify m a n ife st in ju stic e in th e p o ss ib ili ty tha t T ra n s U n io n m a y b e su e din a sta te f orum underci r cumst ance s w her e compl et e di vers i ty i s l acki ng and w her e i tther ef or e has no r i ghtof

r emoval . C f

. G r eatN . R y. C o. v. A l exande r , 246 U . S. 276, 282 ( 1918) ( “[ I ] n the ab se n c e o f a fra u d u len t p u rp o se to d e fe a t re m o v a l, th e p lain tiff m a y b y th e a lleg a tio n s o f h is compl ai ntdet erm i ne the s t atus w i th r es pectt o r emovabi l i ty of a ca s e, ar i s i ng undera l aw of th e U n ited S tate s, w h e n it is c o m m e n c e d , a n dth a t th is p o w e r to d e term in e th e re m o v ab ili ty of hi s case conti nu es w i th the pl ai nti ff throug ho ut the li t i gati on , so that w hethersuch a c ase nonr emovabl e w hen comm ence d s hal l af t erw ar ds become r emovabl e depends notupon w hat th e d e fe n d a n t m a y a lleg e o r p ro v e o r w h a t th e c o u rt m a y , afte r h e a ri n g u p o n th e m e rits, in i nvi tum , or der , buts ol el y upon the f orm w hi ch the pl ai nt i f

f by hi s vol unt ary act i on s hal l gi ve to th e p le a d in g s in th e c a s e a s it p ro g re s s e s to w a rd s a c o n c lu s io n .” ). A cc o rdin g ly, w e reject as w ith o u t m eritT ran s U n ion ’s ch all en g e to th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c is io n n o t to re ta in s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r L in d o r’ s s ta te la w c la im s . 4. C oncl us i on F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th e S e p tem b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t o f t h e d istric t co u rt is AF F I RMED . FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G AN W O L F E , C lerk o f C o urt