Black v. Trans Union LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
J.B. Black,
Plaintiff,
v.
TransUnion LLC and
Experian Information Solutions,
Inc.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-5934
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER
Although this case has been pending for several months, and
there are now eleven motions pending, this case has just recently
been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 70. The court addresses the
motions in turn.
This case is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff complains
that, after a data breach, Defendants “suppressed” his credit file
and failed to make it available to third parties, thus causing his
credit to suffer. Id.
Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint on December 10, 2025.
ECF No. 1. He amended his complaint once as of right on
December 17, 2025. ECF No. 5 (First Amended Complaint). On
December 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint, ECF No. 11, along with his proposed
second amended complaint, ECF No. 12. On January 20, 2026,
TransUnion LLC (TransUnion) filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 32. In response to
the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff notes that he has requested leave
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05934 Document 71 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
to amend and that the motion has not been ruled on. ECF No. 34
at 1.
The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend,
ECF No. 11, but it does not accept the proposed complaint,
ECF No. 12, as the live pleading. Instead, by May 8, 2026,
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint that
addresses all of the deficiencies identified in TransUnion’s Motion
to Dismiss. Further leave to amend to address deficiencies already
identified will be denied. Once Plaintiff has filed the amended
complaint, Defendants shall move or answer within the time
allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TransUnion’s
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 32, is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s
motion to file a sur-reply, ECF No. 47, is also DENIED as moot.
TransUnion filed a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 36. The Motion is GRANTED.
Discovery is hereby STAYED pending the court’s ruling on
any Rule 12 motion that Defendants may file in response to the
forthcoming amended complaint. Furthermore, the current
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 67, is VACATED. All court settings
are canceled. The court will set another schedule, as needed, after
it rules on any Rule 12 motions that are filed.
Because the court has stayed discovery, all pending motions
pertaining to discovery—ECF Nos. 27, 39, 55, 58—are DENIED.
In response to one such discovery motion, Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (Experian) requests fees pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B). ECF No. 66. Because Experian has
failed to submit any information from which the court can
calculate attorney’s fees, its Motion for Fees, ECF No. 66, is
DENIED.
Case 4:25-cv-05934 Document 71 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff moved for entry of default against Experian for
failure to timely respond to the Original Complaint. ECF No. 16.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), the clerk must enter
default against a party that has failed to plead or otherwise defend.
The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Additionally, under Rule 6(b), courts may
extend the time to answer for good cause and excusable neglect.
In its response to Plaintiff’s motion, Experian argues that its
answer was not late because it answered within twenty-one days
of the filing of the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 41. In any
event, Experian’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint was
filed less than a week after the deadline to answer Plaintiff’s
Original Complaint. It is clear that Experian was acting in
response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, not Plaintiff’s
Original Complaint. Experian has now appeared in the case and is
defending itself. Were default to be entered, the court would find
good cause to set it aside under Rule 55(c). Therefore, the Clerk of
Court is ORDERED to refrain from entering default against
Experian. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default, ECF No. 16, is
DENIED.
Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 40. 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. 40,
be DENIED. The accompanying request for expedited hearing on
the Emergency Motion, ECF No. 38, is DENIED as moot.
Case 4:25-cv-05934 Document 71 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
With respect to the court’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion, ECF No. 40, 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 23, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05934 Document 71 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4