Hafeez v. Experian Information Solutions Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ERIC HAFEEZ, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-0309-D
§
EXPERIAN INFORMATION 	§
SOLUTIONS, INC., 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
In this removed action, plaintiff Eric Hafeez (“Hafeez”) moves to remand the case to
the justice court. For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.
I
Hafeez filed a small claims petition in Dallas County Justice Court, alleging that
defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) violated various provisions of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Experian removed the
case to this court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.
Hafeez now moves to remand the case to the justice court on the basis that state courts have
concurrent jurisdiction over his FCRA claims. Experian opposes the motion, which the court
is deciding on the briefs, without oral argument.
Case 3:26-cv-00309-D Document 19 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

II
The court begins with a procedural matter. Hafeez filed the instant motion to remand
on February 6, 2026. He later filed, on March 2, 2026, a combined notice of no response,
motion to remand, and motion for protective order and a separate notice and objection to
defendant’s untimely and unserved response. Hafeez also filed an objection to Experian’s
response brief, contending that the response was untimely under N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1. The
court overrules these motions and objection.
Hafeez filed his motion to remand on February 6, 2026. Under N.D. Tex. Civ. R.
7.1(e), Experian’s response was due February 27, 2026, i.e., 21 days after the motion was
filed. Because Experian filed its response on February 27, 2026, the response was timely.
Hafeez is also incorrect in contending that Experian is responsible for the failure to
effect service of its response. 	Because Hafeez, a pro se litigant, does not appear to have
registered as an ECF user, service was supposed to have been made through the court’s
electronic filing system: Experian made an electronic filing that the clerk of court then
mailed to Hafeez. The docket reflects that this has occurred several times, but may not been
done with Experian’s response to Hafeez’s remand motion. If the clerk of court in fact failed
to mail Experian’s response to Hafeez, that is a failure of the clerk’s office, not Experian.
And it is no basis to disregard Experian’s response brief. The court therefore denies Hafeez’s
corollary motions.
- 2 -
Case 3:26-cv-00309-D Document 19 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

III
The court now turns to the merits. 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, unless Congress
expressly provides otherwise, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district
courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . .
. to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.” Hafeez does not dispute that his justice court petition, which
alleges claims only under FCRA, “raises issues of federal law sufficient to support federal
question jurisdiction.” Franklin v. City of Dallas, 2017 WL 2666246, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June
21, 2017) (Fitzwater, J.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Hafeez contends that removal was improper because state courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over FCRA claims. But Congress’ act of conferring concurrent jurisdiction does
not, by itself, prohibit a removal that is otherwise proper. See White v. Enron Corp., Merger
Severance Plan, 686 F. Supp. 582, 583 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (Sanders, C.J.). In other words, the
fact that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction does not alone make the case
non-removable. 	And Hafeez identifies no provision of FCRA that prohibits removal of
claims brought under that statute. See id. (“Had Congress intended to prohibit removal . . .
it would have said so.”).
Accordingly, because this court has federal question jurisdiction over Hafeez’s claims,
removal was proper, and Hafeez’s motion to remand should be denied.
- 3 -
Case 3:26-cv-00309-D Document 19 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

* 	* 	*
For the reasons explained, Hafeez’s motion to remand is denied.
SO ORDERED.
March 23, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
- 4 -
Case 3:26-cv-00309-D Document 19 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>