Manley v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TREMAINE MANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC, et. al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Civil Action No. H-25-1810
Pending before the Court are Experian Information Solutions, Inc.' s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Document No. 46); Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave
to 	File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply (Document No. 	51); and
Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect Party Designation
(Document No. 58). Having considered the motions, submissions, and applicable
law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs motion to correct the docket should be
granted, Plaintiffs motion for leave should be denied, and that Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.' s motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case. Plaintiff Tremaine Manley
contends that he discovered several inaccurate entries in Defendant Experian
Information Solutions, Inc.' s ("Experian") credit file. Plaintiff alleges that, on April
1
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 15

4, 2024, he notified Experian of the inaccuracies. Plaintiff further contends that
Experian refused to investigate the alleged inaccuracies.
Based on the foregoing, on April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court,
pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims under the FCRA for: ( 1)
"failure to reinvestigate[;]" (2) "failure to ensure accuracy[;]" (3) failure to provide
file disclosures[;]" and (4) "willful and negligent violations[.]" 1 On February 27,
2026, Experian moved for summary judgment. 2 On March 	17, 	2026, Plaintiff
responded in opposition. 3 On March 25, 2026, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a
corrected exhibit. 4 On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff moved to correct the docket and
remove an incorrect party designation. 5
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3.
2 See 	Experian Information Solutions, 	Inc. 's 	Motion for 	Summary Judgment,
Document No. 46 at 1.
3 See 	Plaintiff's 	Response 	in 	Opposition 	to 	Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 1.
4 See Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 1.
. 5 See Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect Party Designation,
Document No. 58 at 1.
2
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 15

Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
nonmovant. Coleman v. Haus. lndep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion and the
elements of the causes of action upon which the nonrnovant will be unable to
establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 ( 1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific
facts showing there is 	a genuine dispute for trial. 	See 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	56(c);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). "A
dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus.,
Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
But the nonmoving party's bare allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to
create a material dispute of fact and defeat a motion for summary. If a reasonable
jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party, then summary judgment is
appropriate. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmovant's burden cannot
be satisfied by "conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, 	or 	'only a
scintilla of evidence."' Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.
1994)). Uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment,
especially 	if the 	overwhelming 	documentary 	evidence 	supports 	the 	opposite
3
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 15

scenario. Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, it
is not the function of the Court to search the record on the nonmovant's behalf for
evidence which may raise a fact issue. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1137
n.30 (5th Cir. 	1992). Therefore, "[a]lthough we consider the evidence and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of
its pleadings but must respond by setting forth specific facts indicating a genuine
issue for trial." Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F .3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 2000).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
The Court will consider the pending motions beginning with Plaintiffs
Motion for Leave (Document No. 51 ), followed by Plaintiffs Motion to Correct the
Docket (Document No. 58), and concluding with Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document No. 46). The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
A. Plaintiff's Motion/or Leave (Document No. 51)
Plaintiff moves for leave to "file the correct Exhibit C and a limited sur-
reply[. ]" 6 In response, Experian contends that "Plaintiff attempts to supplement his
Opposition by providing seven irrelevant pages that are clearly missing pages within
6 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-
Reply, Document No. 51 at 1.
4
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 15

the document" and that a sur-reply is not necessary in this case. 7 The Court will
consider, in tum, Plaintiffs request for leave to amend and Plaintiffs request for
leave to file a sur-reply.
1. 	Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C
The Court notes that Experian's motion for summary judgment was filed on
February 	27, 	2026. 	Pursuant to 	the Southern District 	of Texas Local Rules,
Plaintiffs response was due 21-days later on March 20, 2026. See S.D. Tex. Local
R. 7.3. Plaintiffs response was timely filed on March 17, 2026. However, the Court
further notes that Plaintiffs present motion for leave to amend his response was filed
outside of the response deadline on March 25, 2026. The Court will nonetheless
consider the merits of Pla1ntiff s motion.
Here Plaintiff contends that "[t]he docketed filing appears to reflect a clerical
attachment error in which Exhibit B was duplicated and attached in place of Exhibit
C[.]" 8 In response, Experian contends that "[t]he documents Plaintiff attempts to
7 Experian Information Solutions, 	Inc, 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at
2-3.
8 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-
Reply, Document No. 51 at 1.
5
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 15

•supplement his Opposition as Exhibit C exclude the relevant document." 9 The Court
has reviewed, in detail, the record in this matter. The Court notes that Plaintiffs
response identifies the intended Exhibit C as "Experian's Automated Consumer
Dispute Verification records [.]" 10 The Court notes that the Consumer Dispute
Verification records ("CDV") which Plaintiff purports to identify as Exhibit C is
already in the record as produced by Experian. 11 Furthermore, the Court notes that
the proposed amended Exhibit C provided by Plaintiff in the present motion does
not appear to be a CDV. 12 Plaintiff does not explain what this document is or how it
is relevant to the current matter. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs proposed
amended Exhibit C is not relevant to this matter. Based on the foregoing, the Court
determines that Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend should be denied. The Court
declines to consider Plaintiffs proposed amended Exhibit C for the purpose of the
9 Experian Information Solutions, 	Inc. 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at
2.
10 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 3.
11 See Declaration of Teresa Fievez in Support of Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 47, Exhibit
A at 1 (Experian CDV).
12 See Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Correct~d Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51, Exhibit A at 1-7 (Exhibit C).
6
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 15

forthcoming motions. The Court will now consider Plaintiffs motion as it relates to
leave to file a sur-reply.
2. 	Leave to File a Sur-Reply
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a sur-reply "addressing two matters raised ..
m 	Defendant's 	Reply[.]" 13 In 	response, 	Experian 	contends 	that 	"[r]outine
disagreements with the reply or a desire to recast the record are not sufficient" to
justify a sur-reply . 14 As Plaintiff notes in their motion, "[u]nder Southern District of
Texas practice, a movant may file a reply, but further briefing such as a sur-reply is
not automatic[.]" 15 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-reply addressing "(a)
Defendant's contention that portions of Plaintiffs response are outside the pleadings
or constitute new claims; and (b) Defendant's objection to Exhibit C based on the
docketed attachment problem described above." 16 Considering the long-standing
precedent that a party is not automatically entitled to a sur-reply, and considering
13 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2.
14 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at
3.
15 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2.
16 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2.
7
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 15

that the present motion has already been fully briefed, the Court finds that a sur-
reply is not necessary in this matter. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs motion
should be denied. The Court will now consider Plaintiffs motion to correct the
docket.
B. 	Plaintiff's Motion to Correct the Docket (Document No. 58)
Plaintiff moves 	to 	correct the 	docket 	and 	remove 	an 	incorrect 	party
designation. The Court notes that on April 	7, 	2026, Plaintiff filed their First
Amended Complaint. 17 However, the Court further notes that on April 8, 2026,
Plaintiff filed a notice of erroneous filing contending that the ,First Amended
Complaint was "not intended for this action[.]" 18 Also on April 8, 2026, Plaintiff
filed the present motion requesting that the Court "remove or correct any. incorrect
reference to Navy Federal Credit Union as a defendant in this case[.]" 19 Considering
that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was not intended to be filed in this matter, the
Court finds that it should be struck. As such, the Court hereby strikes Plaintiffs
17 See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Document No. 56 at 1.
18 Plaintiff's Notice of Erroneous Filing, Document No. 57 at 1.
19 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2.
8
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 15

Amended Complaint and notes that Plaintiffs Original Complaint remains the
operative complaint in this matter.
Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter and notes that
Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union was not a defendant in this matter under
Plaintiffs Original Complaint. Considering the Court's finding that Plaintiffs
Original Complaint is the operative complaint in this matter, the Court finds that
Navy Federal Credit Union is not a proper party to this action. As such, to the extent
any claims are brought against Navy Federal Credit Union, they are dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs motion to correct the docket
should be granted. The Court will now consider Experian's motion for summary
judgment.
C. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 46)
Experian moves for summary judgment, contending that "[a]t best, Plaintiff
offers completely unsupported allegations that are insufficient to create a genuine
issue of fact." 20 In response, Plaintiff contends that "Experian's Motion is premised
on an artificially narrow characterization of Plaintiffs claims[.]" 21
20 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document
No. 46 at 9-10.
21 Plaintiff's Response in Oppositi9n to Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 5.
9
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 15

As a preliminary matter, a party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden
of establishing standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 555 (1992)
(holding that a party must establish "that they have suffered an injury in fact, i.e., a
concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected
interest."). To establish standing, a plaintiff "must have ( 1) suffered an injury in fact,
(2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578
U.S. 330, 338 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. 555 at 560)).
Here, Experian contends that "Plaintiff did not suffer the concrete and
particularized injury necessary to establish Article III standing." 22 In response,
Plaintiff contends that "genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding action
damages[.]" 23 Plaintiffs complaint alleges that "[a]s a direct and proximate result of
Experian' s willful and negligent violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered
significant harm. He has been denied credit opportunities ... he has experienced
increased 	insurance 	premiums; 	and 	he 	has 	endured 	humiliation[.] 	Moreover,
Plaintiff operates a small business and was denied a line of credit[.]" 24 Based on the
22 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document
No. 46 at 24.
23 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 14.
24 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2-3.
10
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 15

Court's own independent review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court notes that
Plaintiff fails to provide any supporting evidence with respect to his alleged
damages.
Plaintiff contends that actual damages are present in this matter, arguing, in
relevant part, that: (1) "Plaintiffs February 27, 2026 disclosure reflects a FICO
Score 8 of 558, multiple charged-off accounts reporting present-tense 'Past Due'
balances[;]" (2) "[e]ach hard inquiry reflects that Plaintiffs consumer report was
furnished to a third-party lender[;]" and that (3) "because he was unable to obtain
regular financing, he entered a substantially more expensive vehicle transaction with
burdensome terms[.]" 25 Experian contends that "[n]one 	of the 	documents 	that
Plaintiff has provided in any of his motions demonstrate a causal link between the
outcomes of his reinvestigations and the alleged damages." 26 Furthermore, Experian
contends that "[t]he results of Plaintiff having a low credit score because of accurate
reporting are different from plausible damages based on some alleged violation of
Experian. " 27 The Court has conducted a thorough review of the support provided by
25 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 14-15.
26 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 9.
27 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 9.
11
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 15

Plaintiff in support of his damages. 	The Court's review reveals that none 	of
Plaintiffs 	supporting 	evidence 	provide 	any 	causal 	link between 	any 	alleged
negligence by Experian and any alleged damages.
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff is contending that the charged-off
accounts reporting as past due caused his alleged damages, the Court rejects such
contention as an improper understanding of the law. 28 To the extent that Plaintiff is
contending that the reported bankruptcies caused his alleged damages, the Court
notes that Plaintiff has provided no evidence that bankruptcies were inaccurately
reported. 29 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show
that any alleged injuries or damages are fairly traceable to Experian.
With respect to Plaintiffs alleged emotional damages, Experian contends that
"Plaintiff did not suffer the concrete and particularized injury necessary to establish
28 See Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion
for Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 3 ("Plaintiff argues that because multiple
negative trade lines in his credit report are labeled 'Account charged off while also being
labeled as 'Past Due' 	and that his credit report could mislead a reasonable creditor.
Plaintiffs theory is not supported by law or fact.") (citation omitted) (relying on Davidson
v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 4:24-cv-1172-P, 2025 WL 2632407, at *19 (N.D. Tex.
Aug. 14, 2025); Thomason v. World Finance, No. 1:23-cv-00109-ada, 2023 WL 4375499,
at *8 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2023)).
29 See Declaration of Teresa Fievez in Support of Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 47, Exhibit
1 (Bankruptcies Reported) (noting "BK 7 Dismissed").
12
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 15

Article III standing." 30 Experian relies on binding Fifth Circuit precedent which
holds that a "plaintiff seeking emotional distress damages is required to present
'evidence of a genuine injury ... ' and to demonstrate 'a degree of specificity[.] "' 31
Wagner v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 520 F. App'x 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2013) (per
. curiam) (citation omitted). In response, Plaintiff contends that Experian's "refusal to
conduct a reinvestigation ... caused stress, anxiety, frustration, embarrassment,
sleep disruption, and financial harm." 32 A review of the record in this matter reveals
that Plaintiffs only support for their emotional damages is their own declaration
stating nothing more than what is already contained in Plaintiffs response. 33 Based
on the foregoing, 	and given the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance that emotional
damages must be accompanied by evidence of a genuine injury and be pied with a
degree of specificity, the Court finds that Plaintiffs alleged emotional damages are
nothing more than speculative. As such, the Court finds that the alleged emotional
30 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document
No. 46 at 24.
31 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document
No. 46 at 24.
32 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 15.
33 See 	Plaintiff's Response 	in 	Opposition 	to Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48, Exhibit G at 2 (Manley
Declaration) ("Experian's refusal to conduct a reinvestigation, and the continued reporting
of 	the 	disputed 	items, 	caused 	me 	significant 	stress, 	frustration, 	anxiety, 	[and]
embarrassment[.]").
13
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 13 of 15

damages do not aid in Plaintiffs attempt to show a particularized injury required for
Article III standing.
Given the Court's finding that Plaintiff has failed to show a particularized
injury with respect to his emotional damages and failed to show traceability to
Experian with "respect to his financial damages, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to establish Article III standing. Based on the foregoing, and the Supreme
Court's clear guidance that it is the plaintiffs burden to 	show that they have
standing, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. Thus, the Court
finds that Experian's motion to dismiss should be granted. 34
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected
Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply (Document No. 51) is DENIED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect
Party Designation (Document No. 58) is GRANTED, The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Document No. 56) is
hereby STRUCK. The Court further
34 Given the Court's finding that Plaintiff lacks standing, the Court declines to
consider Experian' s remaining arguments related to the merits of each of Plaintiffs
potential claims.
14
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 14 of 15

ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Navy Federal Credit
•Union, to the extent Plaintiff brings any, are hereby DISMISSED. The Court further
ORDERS that Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document No. 46) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED. The Court further
ORDERS that all pending motions in this matter are hereby DENIED AS
MOOT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this __i__bday of June, 2026.
DAYID HITTNER
United States District Judge
15
Case 4:25-cv-01810 Document 64 Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD Page 15 of 15