Amusat v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Malik Amusat, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action H-25-4350
§
Santander Consumer USA Inc., 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 29. There are
several motions pending, which the court addresses below.
This case is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also brings
state law claims. Id. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
October 13, 2025. ECF No. 9. In large part, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish his claims.
Id. Plaintiff filed a lengthy response, but at the end, he seeks leave
to amend. ECF No. 11 at 29.
“Dismissing an action after giving the plaintiff only one
opportunity to state his case is ordinarily unjustified.” Davoodi v.
Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986)). If the
plaintiff seeks leave to amend, they “must give the court at least
some notice of what . . . [their] amendments would be and how
those amendments would cure the initial complaint’s defects.”
Scott v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 16 F.4th 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 2021)
(citation omitted). While Plaintiff has not stated how he proposes
to amend his complaint, the court exercises its discretion to allow
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04350 Document 30 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
a single amendment. Plaintiff shall amend his complaint by
May 8, 2026. The amended complaint shall address all of the
deficiencies identified in the pending motion to dismiss. Future
requests for leave to amend to address deficiencies already
identified will be denied. Defendant shall move or answer within
the time allowed by the Federal Rules. In light of the foregoing,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is DENIED as moot.
Given the state of the pleadings in this case, the court
concludes that all other proceedings should be stayed pending a
ruling on any Rule 12 motion that Defendant may file. The current
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 22, is VACATED. All deadlines and
court settings are canceled. Discovery is STAYED pending further
notice. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena, ECF No. 14, is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks permission to file electronically. ECF No. 12.
That motion is GRANTED. A separate order will be entered.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on his claim for breach of an accord and satisfaction
agreement. ECF No. 28. Without ruling on the merits of the
motion, it is TERMINATED as premature. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(b), a party may file a motion for summary
judgment at any time up to thirty days after the close of discovery
“[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders
otherwise.” “Although the rule allows a motion for summary
judgment to be filed at the commencement of an action, in many
cases the motion will be premature until . . . other pretrial
proceedings have been had. Scheduling orders or other pretrial
orders can regulate timing to fit the needs of the case.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee’s Note to 2010 Amendment.
For reasons of efficiency and economy, the court prefers to allow
the parties to engage in full discovery and take all dispositive
motions under advisement at once after they become ripe at the
Case 4:25-cv-04350 Document 30 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
end of the case. This allows the court to consider all the issues in
the case at once, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. The court has
stayed discovery. The court will take any Rule 12 motions under
advisement. If the case continues after ruling on any motions
under Rule 12, the court will set a new scheduling order and will
allow motions to be filed at an appropriate, later date.
Plaintiff has filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. ECF No. 16. Although he brings claims under both
the FCRA and state law, his request for injunctive relief is
based on the FCRA. The FCRA does not allow private litigants to
obtain injunctive relief. Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc.,
199 F.3d 263, 268–69 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the court
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive
relief, ECF No. 16, be DENIED.
With respect to the court’s recommendation that the
Emergency Motion, ECF No. 16, be denied, the parties have
fourteen days from service of this Memorandum and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file objections will preclude
appellate review of factual findings or legal conclusions, except for
plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147–49 (1985);
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas on April 24, 2026.
___________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04350 Document 30 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3