Murphy v. Midland Credit Management, 10-31-2006

[David A. Szwak]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EUNICE MURPHY, ))
Plaintiffs, ))
v. ) Case No. 4:05CV1545 RWS
)
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, )
INC., et al. ))
Defendant, )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on Defendant’s Partial Motion to Reconsider [#83]. Defendant
Experian Information Solutions Inc. requests that I reverse part of my ruling of October 11, 2006, denying Experian’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of willfulness. The motion will be denied.
Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence. Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. Russellville Steel Co., Inc., 367 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotations omitted).
The motion will be denied because Experian has neither identified any manifest error of
law nor fact in my analysis nor identified any newly discovered evidence.

Legal Standard
15 U.S.C. § 1681n provides the statutory authority for civil liability for willful
noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Eunice Murphy’s remaining willful
noncompliance claim arises out of Experian’s alleged failure to meet the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a). “[W]illful noncompliance under section 1681n requires knowing and intentional commission of an act the defendant knows to violate the law.â€