Smith v. Experian Information Solutions Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KATHRYN SMITH, 	§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et. al.,
Defendants.
§ 	Civil Action No. H-26-0206
§
§
§
§
·§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax
Information Services, LLC's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and
Memorandum in Support (Document No. 28). Having considered the Defendants'
motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion
should be granted with respect to Defendant Trans Union LLC and denied as moot
with respect to Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a matter involving alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Plaintiff Kathryn Smith contends that she is the victim of identity theft. Plaintiff
alleges that, on several occasions, she sent written. documentation to Defendants
Experian 	Information 	Solutions, 	Inc., 	Equifax 	Information 	Services, 	LLC,
("Equifax") 	and 	Trans 	Union 	LLC 	("Trans 	Union") 	(collectively 	"CRA
Defendants") requesting that the identity theft information be blocked. Plaintiff
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

further alleges that the CRA Defendants failed to "timely block identity-theft
information, failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations, and continued to publish
inaccurate 	and misleading 	consumer reports." 1 Lastly, 	Plaintiff contends 	that
Defendants 	Midland 	Credit 	Management 	Inc. 	("Midland"), 	Jefferson 	Capital
Systems, LLC, Credit One Bank NA, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, Capital One
Bank NA, The Bank of Missouri, Stride Bank NA, and Austin Capital Bank
(collectively "Furnisher Defendants") "failed to reasonably investigate and failed to
correct or delete the fraudulent information they furnished." 2
Based on the foregoing, on January 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court
pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, asserting a claim against the Furnisher
Defendants for "furnisher violations" and claims against the CRA Defendants for:
(1) identity theft blocking; (2) failure to reinvestigate; and (3) failure to maintain
reasonable procedures. 3 On ·March 10, 2026, Defendants Trans Union and Equifax
filed a joint motion to dismiss. 4 Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' motion
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 4.
2 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 4.
3 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 4-5.
4 See Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services, LLC's Joint
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Memorandum in Support, Document No. 28
at 1.
2
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

to dismiss, either by the date required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
by the date of this Order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell At!.
Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " [t]he
'court accepts all well~pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court."' Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
3
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendants Trans Union and Equifax move to dismiss Plaintiffs claims,
contending that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss, failing to rebut or offer evidence
to counter Defendants' contentions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is
taken as a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. Regardless of
Plaintiffs failure to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will
consider the merits of Plaintiffs claims against Trans Union. 5 The Court construes
all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant Trans Union for: (1) "15 U.S.C. §
168lc-2 	(Identity 	Theft 	Blocking)"; 	(2) 	"15 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1681i(a) 	(Failure 	to
Reinvestigate)"; and (3) "15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (Failure to Maintain Reasonable
Procedures)[.]" 6 The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") governs credit reporting
and provides for private rights of action in some cases. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.
Most pertinent here, a plaintiff seeking to recover under the aforementioned sections
of the FCRA must plead sufficient facts showing factual inaccuracy in their credit
report. See Washington v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., 199 F.3d 263,267 n.3 (5th Cir.
5 The Court notes Stipulation of Dismissal by Equifax, Document No. 61 at 1.
Because Plaintiff has dismissed the claims against Equifax, the Court finds that the pending
motion to dismiss should be denied as moot with respect to Equifax. Nonetheless, the Court
will consider the motion as it relates to Plaintiff's claims against Trans Union.
6 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 4.
4
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

2000) (relating to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)); Morris v. Trans Union LLC, 420 F.Supp.2d
733, 751 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (relating to 15 U.S.C. 	§ 1681i(a)); Johnson v. 	Trans
Union, LLC, No. 3:25-CV-273-X-BN, 2026 WL 852188 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2026)
(requiring a plaintiff to allege the "'information that resulted from an alleged identity
theft"' for purposes of 1681c-2.) (citation omitted).
Here, Trans Union contends, in relevant part, that "Plaintiffs Complaint, nor
her Exhibits incorporated therein, plausibly allege any factual inaccuracy in the CRA
Defendants' reporting to sustain her FCRA claims, nor could they provide the CRA
Defendants' 	any 	notice 	of 	what, 	if 	anything, 	Plaintiff 	claims 	is 	somehow
'inaccurate. "' 7 Plaintiff offers no rebuttal. A review of the record in this matter
reveals that Plaintiff fails to identify what information was inaccurate. The Court
notes that Plaintiff purports to attach an "Itemization of Disputed Identity" as Exhibit
A, but further notes that Exhibit A contains nothing more than further conclusory
allegations 	and 	fails 	to 	identify 	what 	specific 	information 	was 	inaccurate. 8
Furthermore, with respect to Plaintiffs 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) claim, the Court notes
that Plaintiff fails to identify what specific information resulted from any alleged
7 Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services, LLC's Joint
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Memorandum in Support, Document No. 28
at 8 (citation omitted).
8 See Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1, Exhibit A at 2 (Itemization ofDisputed
Identity) 	(referencing "[m]ultiple credit-card, loan, and bank account" but failing to
identify any specific credit cards, loans, or bank accounts.).
5
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

identity theft. 9 Based on the foregoing, and the clearly established precedent that, as
a preliminary matter, a plaintiff seeking to recover under the FCRA must plead
sufficient facts to show a factual inaccuracy, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and thus, that Defendant Trans
•Union's motion should be granted. 10
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS 	that Defendants 	Trans Union LLC 	and Equifax Information
Services, LLC's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and Memorandum in
Support (Document No. 28) is GRANTED with respect to Defendant Trans Union
LLC. The Court further
ORDERS 	that Defendants 	Trans 	Union LLC 	and Equifax Information
Services, LLC' s Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and Memorandum in
Support (Document No. 28) is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Defendant
Equifax Information Services, LLC. The Court further
9 See 	e.g. 	Itemization 	of Disputed Identity, 	supra 	note 	8 	at 	2 	(identifying
"[f]raudulent [c]ollections ... arising from identity theft" but failing to identify any specific
collections.).
10 Considering the Court's finding that Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to show
a factual inaccuracy, the Court declines to consider Trans Union's remaining argument
related to Plaintiffs failure to notify Defendants of any alleged errors.
6
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

ORDERS that Plaintiffs clai ms agai nst Defendant Trans Union LLC are
hereby DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this ;/J, day of June, 2026.
��)�United States District Judge
7
Case 4:26-cv-00206 Document 79 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7