Harden v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Tyrone Harden Jr., 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-3655
§
Equifax Information Services LLC, 	§
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 	§
and CCM Finance LLC, 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
JUDGE PALERMO’S
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a vehicle-repossession case. Plaintiff Tyrone Harden Jr. moves for an
entry of default against Defendant CCM Finance LLC (“CCM”). ECF No. 49.
Plaintiff further moves for a default judgment against CCM. ECF No. 50.1 For the
reasons outlined below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of default
and recommends that his motion for a default judgment be denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The allegations in Plaintiff’s amended complaint are brief and a bit disjointed,
but the basic premise seems straightforward. Plaintiff opened two accounts with
1 The district judge to whom this case is assigned referred all pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). ECF No. 22. “A motion for default judgment is a dispositive motion appropriate for
a Magistrate Judge recommendation.” Ocean Marine Servs., LLC v. DMW Marine, LLC, No. 4:25-
CV-3086, 2026 WL 587989, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2026), adopted, No. CV H-25-3086, 2026
WL 587767 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2026).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 9

CCM Finance LLC (“CCM”)—one ending in x2169 and another ending in x2019—
to purchase two vehicles. ECF No. 29 ¶ 10. At some point, it seems Plaintiff stopped
paying his loans, so CCM “repossessed Plaintiff’s vehicle[s] from [his] gated
apartment complex at night without notice,” taking the first car back in February
2022 and the second one back in September 2024. Id. ¶ 11. After repossessing the
cars, Plaintiff claims “CCM reported materially inconsistent balances, duplicate
tradelines, and contradictory statuses to Equifax and Experian.” Id. ¶ 12. In response,
he “filed multiple disputes” with “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
[“CFPB”] . . . , but Defendants failed to correct the inaccurate reporting.” Id. ¶ 13.
Plaintiff sued CCM, Experian, and Equifax on August 6, 2025. ECF No. 1.
He subsequently filed an amended complaint, asserting five claims against CCM
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. ECF No.
29 ¶¶ 25–34. On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a declaration from his process
server, explaining that the server “served the summons” and amended complaint on
CCM through the “Texas Secretary of State, who is designated by law to accept
service of process on behalf of CCM.” ECF No. 34.
To 	date, CCM has 	not 	appeared 	or 	responded 	to 	Plaintiff’s 	amended
complaint. Thus, Plaintiff moves to default CCM and requests a default judgment.
ECF Nos. 49, 50.
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 9

II. 	DEFAULT JUDGMENTS UNDER RULE 55
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs default proceedings. “This
involves sequential steps of default, entry of default, and default judgment.” United
States v. $11,409.02 Seized from a Comerica Bank Account Ending in 2113, No.
4:21-CV-01349, 	2021 	WL 	5177065, 	at 	*2 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	Nov. 	8, 	2021).
“A default occurs ‘when a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the
complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules.’” Id. (emphasis in original)
(quoting N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v Brown, 84 F3d 137, 141 (5th Cir 1996)). The Clerk
enters an entry of default “when a plaintiff establishes the default by affidavit or
otherwise pursuant to Rule 55(a).” Id. The Court can then enter a default judgment
against a defendant upon motion “by a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2).” Id.
Default judgment is “a drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules and resorted
to by courts only in extreme situations.” Id. (quoting Sun Bank of Ocala v Pelican
Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F2d 274, 276 (5th Cir 1989) (footnote omitted)).
III. 	PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROPERLY SERVE CCM.
Before entering a default judgment, courts “must examine [their] jurisdiction
both over the subject matter and the parties, liability, and damages.” Ocean Marine
Servs., LLC v. DMW Marine, LLC, No. 4:25-CV-3086, 2026 WL 587989, at *3 (S.D.
Tex. Jan. 8, 2026) (quoting PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Atkins, No. 4:24-cv-3111,
2025 WL 1490542, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2025), adopted, No. 4:24-cv-03111,
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 9

2025 WL 1490501 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2025)), adopted, No. CV H-25-3086, 2026
WL 587767 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2026). “[A] plaintiff must submit evidence that the
defendant has been properly served with the summons, complaint, and the default
judgment motion.” Id. at *4 (quoting PHH Mortg., 2025 WL 1490542, at *3).
“Without proper service, a court does not have personal jurisdiction over the
defendant, and, as a result, any default judgment is void.” Id. (quoting PHH Mortg.,
2025 WL 1490542, at *3).
Rule 4 governs service of process. Under Rule 4(h), companies must be served
either “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual” or “by
delivering a copy of the summons and . . . complaint to an officer, a managing or
general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process.” F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1). “Under Rule 4(e)(1), a plaintiff may
serve a defendant ‘following state law for serving a summons in an action brought
in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or
where service is made.’” Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, No. 4:24-CV-00991, 2025
WL 2429017, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 14, 2025) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1)).
Under Texas law, “a corporation may be served through its registered agent,
president, or any vice president.” Id. (citing T EX. BUS. O RG. CODE §§ 5.201(b),
5.225(1)). Companies doing business in Texas “must designate and continuously
maintain in th[e] state (1) a registered agent; and (2) a registered office.” Id. (quoting
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 9

Paramount Credit, Inc. v. Montgomery, 420 S.W.3d 226, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.)). A company may be served through the Texas Secretary
of State only if the company “fails to appoint or does not maintain a registered agent
in [Texas]” or the plaintiff shows that he “cannot with reasonable diligence” find
“the registered office of the entity.” T EX. BUS. O RG. CODE § 5.251(1); Wright v.
A&O Enters., Inc., No. 3:25-CV-00080-S, 2025 WL 3635588, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov.
24, 2025), adopted, No. 3:25-CV-0080-S, 2025 WL 3634181 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15,
2025). “Texas enforces strict compliance with its service of process rules.” Caldwell,
2025 WL 2429017, at *2.
Here, Plaintiff asserts that CCM “was properly served with the Summons and
Complaint through its designated agent for service of process, the Texas Secretary
of State” on October 14, 2025, and cites the declaration executed by his process
server (ECF No. 34) as proof. ECF No. 49 at 1. Plaintiff’s process server states that
he “served the summons” and amended complaint on CCM through the “Texas
Secretary of State, who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf
of CCM.” ECF No. 34.
There are two main problems with Plaintiff’s attempted service. First, he has
not alleged—much less established—that CCM failed to appoint or maintain a
registered agent in Texas. Indeed, a quick entity search from the Texas Secretary of
State and the Texas Comptroller’s website reveals that CCM is registered in Texas
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 9

with a registered agent named “Orhan Ozis,” located at 11834 E. Northwest Hwy,
Dallas, 	TX 	75218. 	CCM 	Finance 	LLC, 	COMPTROLLER.T EXAS.G OV,
https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/account-status/search/32056455960
(last visited May 12, 2026). Since service through the Secretary of State is only
proper if a company fails to maintain a registered agent, Plaintiff’s attempt to serve
CCM through the Secretary is improper because CCM does maintain a registered
agent in Texas.
Second, even if the Court assumes that substitute service through the
Secretary was proper, Plaintiff failed to file “the actual certificate from the
Secretary . . . proving that service was completed.” Wright, 2025 WL 3635588,
at *3. Under Texas law, “a plaintiff may effectuate service by ‘delivering duplicate
copies of the process’ to the Secretary of State and paying the required fee.”
Id. (quoting T EX. BUS. O RGS. CODE § 5.252(a)). “The Secretary then forwards the
process to the [company] and issues a certificate of service.” Id. (citing T EX. BUS.
O RGS. 	CODE 	§ 	5.253). 	That 	certificate 	is 	called 	a 	Whitney 	certificate 	and
“‘conclusively establishes that process was served’ and is ‘essential to establish the
jurisdiction of the court over the defendants’ persons.’” Id. (quoting Dan-Bunkering
(Am.), Inc. v. Ichor Oil, LLC, 561 F. Supp. 3d 710, 715 (N.D. Tex. 2021)). “Without
a Whitney certificate in the record, a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a
defendant and cannot enter a default judgment.” Id.
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 9

Here, Plaintiff did not file a Whitney certificate from the Secretary of State for
the amended complaint. Nor did the process server certify that the amended
complaint and summons were forwarded to CCM. Thus, the record lacks proof of
proper service, “and Texas law does not permit the Court to presume proper service.”
Id. (citing Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994)). The
Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over CCM and cannot enter a default or
grant a default judgment against CCM.
IV. 	PLAINTIFF HAS ONE MORE CHANCE TO SERVE CCM.
Finding 	Plaintiff’s service inadequate, the Court turns 	to the issue of
dismissal. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within
a specified time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). The Court may grant an extension “if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure” to serve a defendant within 90 days. Id.
District courts “enjoy[] a broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss an
action for ineffective service of process.” Yaya v. Driscoll Child.’s Hosp., No. 2:24-
CV-00205, 2025 WL 408452, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2025) (quoting Thrasher v.
City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 2013)), adopted, No. 2:24-CV-00205,
2025 WL 407701 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2025).
The deadline to serve CCM with the amended complaint was October 28,
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 9

2025. Order, ECF No. 28 at 2 (ordering Plaintiff to file his amended complaint and
serve “all named Defendants within thirty days of filing”); ECF No. 29 (amended
complaint filed on September 28, 2025). Over six months later, Plaintiff still has not
served CCM. The Court will grant Plaintiff a final 30-day extension to properly serve
CCM. If Plaintiff fails to file proof of service by June 14, 2026, the Court will
recommend dismissing CCM as a defendant.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default. ECF
No. 49.
The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to file proof that he properly served
CCM by June 11, 2026.
The Court further RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment,
ECF No. 50, be DENIED.
The 	Parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); F ED. R.
C IV . P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude review of factual
findings or legal conclusions, except for plain error. Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d
353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 9

Signed at Houston, Texas, on May 14, 2026.
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 65 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 9