The wheels of justice, sometimes, turn on the simplest of things: responding to a motion. In a recent case, Briyon Dellomar Ford’s lawsuit against Equifax Inc. was dismissed, not because of the merits of his claims, but because he failed to properly respond to Equifax’s motion to dismiss.
The Basics of the Lawsuit
Ford, representing himself (“pro se” in legal terms), filed a complaint in June 2025, claiming that Equifax violated the Truth in Lending Act. He alleged that Equifax didn’t follow proper procedures when investigating his credit, leading to inaccurate information on his credit report and, consequently, damage to his credit profile.
Equifax’s Response and the Key Issue: Service of Process
Equifax didn’t immediately address the merits of Ford’s claims. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Ford hadn’t properly served them with the lawsuit documents. This is a crucial step in any legal case. It ensures the defendant is officially notified of the lawsuit and has a chance to respond. Specifically, Equifax cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which deals with insufficient service of process.
The Court’s Order and Ford’s Lack of Response
The court, on August 22, 2025, ordered Ford to respond to Equifax’s motion by September 5, 2025. This was a clear deadline. The court also warned Ford that if he didn’t respond, the court might treat Equifax’s motion as “conceded,” meaning Ford would effectively be agreeing with Equifax’s argument for dismissal.
Ford did file a change-of-address notice and requested an extension of time to respond to the motion. However, the court denied the extension because Ford didn’t provide sufficient reasons for it, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1). The court gave Ford another chance, telling him he could fix the issues and renew his request. Ford did not.
By November 20, 2025, Ford had still not responded to Equifax’s motion, nor had he sought another extension. The court, showing considerable patience, issued a final order, giving Ford until December 2, 2025, to explain why the court shouldn’t grant Equifax’s motion and dismiss the case. Again, Ford failed to respond.
The Legal Basis for Dismissal: Local Civil Rule 7(b)
The court’s decision to dismiss the case hinged on a local rule: Local Civil Rule 7(b). This rule states that if a party doesn’t respond to a motion to dismiss within the required timeframe, “the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” In other words, if you don’t fight back, the court can assume you agree with your opponent’s arguments.
The court noted that this was a straightforward application of Rule 7(b). Ford had simply failed to respond to a motion that could effectively end the case, despite multiple warnings from the court. The court cited a similar case, *Makell v. FedChoice Fed. Credit Union*, to underscore that Ford was warned of the consequences of not responding. The court also referenced *Davenport v. United States*, where a similar situation resulted in the motion to dismiss being granted because the plaintiff didn’t respond.
The Outcome: Case Dismissed
Because Ford failed to respond to Equifax’s motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion, treating it as conceded. The court dismissed the case. This means Ford’s lawsuit against Equifax is over, at least for now.
The dismissal doesn’t necessarily mean Ford’s claims are without merit. It simply means he didn’t follow the procedural rules required to pursue his case in court. He may have other avenues available to him, but this specific legal action is concluded.