James v. Westlake Financial Services et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
A NGELIQUE J AMES, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-CV-05563
§
WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES 	§
AND E QUIFAX I NFORMATION 	§
SERVICES, LLC, 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	Equifax 	Information 	Services, 	LLC’s
(“Equifax”) Motion to Dismiss.1 ECF 13. Defendant seeks dismissal for failure to
state a claim. 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that
Defendant’s Motion be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Equifax be
DISMISSED.
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background.
“Congress enacted the [Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)] to ensure fair
and accurate credit reporting that protects consumers while meeting the needs of
commerce.” 	Hammer v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 974 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir.
2020). 	To achieve this goal, FCRA regulates consumer reporting agencies that
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 5.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 10

2
compile and disseminate a consumer’s personal information and requires agencies
to develop procedures that ensure fair and accurate reporting and utilization of credit
information. 	Reyes v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279, 284–85 (5th Cir.
2025). 	FCRA also provides a civil action remedy against a consumer reporting
agency for willful or negligent noncompliance with its obligations under the Act. 15
U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o.
Plaintiff 	brings 	claims 	against 	Equifax 	for 	both 	willful 	and 	negligent
violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 	ECF 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that
in May 2025, she formally disputed allegedly inaccurate information regarding a car
loan from Defendant Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”). Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff
claims Equifax responded by verifying the account as accurate without reconciling
the identified discrepancies. 	Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges Equifax failed to provide a
proper verification method or resolve the inaccuracies described in her dispute. Id.
Plaintiff further claims she sent Equifax a letter of intent to sue in July 2025 which
detailed the alleged ongoing inaccuracies and damage. Id. ¶ 15.
II. 	Legal Standards.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 10

3
defendant is liable for the conduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009); Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court “accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Alexander v. AmeriPro Funding, Inc., 848 F.3d 698, 701 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing
Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.
2004)). However, the court does not apply the same presumption to conclusory
statements or legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
Generally, the court may consider only the allegations in the complaint and
any attachments thereto in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. If a motion to dismiss
refers to matters outside the pleading, it is more properly considered as a motion for
summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). However, the court may take judicial
notice of public documents and may also consider documents a defendant attaches
to its motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) if the documents are referenced in the
plaintiff’s complaint and central to the plaintiff’s claims. See Norris v. Hearst
Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000); King v. Life Sch., 809 F. Supp. 2d 572, 579
n.1 (N.D. Tex. 2011).
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 10

4
III. 	Analysis.
Plaintiff brings claims against Equifax for violations of two of the FCRA’s
requirements.2 	ECF 1 at 7. 	Plaintiff alleges that Equifax violated FCRA’s
reinvestigation requirement, § 1681i(a), which requires Equifax to conduct a
reinvestigation into the accuracy of any item of information a consumer disputes and
record the status of the information within 30 days. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
Plaintiff also alleges Equifax violated its statutory obligation to “follow reasonable
procedures 	to 	assure 	maximum 	possible 	accuracy 	of 	the information” 	when
preparing a report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
A. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for failure to reinvestigate under §
1681i(a).
Section 1681i provides a reinvestigation procedure for disputed information:
if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in
a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the
consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly
through a reseller, of such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge,
conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed
information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with
paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date
on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the
consumer or reseller.
2 Plaintiff does not specify which violations are alleged to be willful and which are merely
negligent. See generally ECF 1. Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a FCRA violation, the
Court does not fully analyze whether Plaintiff properly pleaded a claim for willful or negligent
noncompliance. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o; Landrum v. Harris Cnty. Emergency Corps, 122
F. Supp. 3d 617, 625 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (explaining willfulness under FCRA).
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 10

5
15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 	To establish a failure-to-reinvestigate claim under §
1681i, a plaintiff must plead facts showing: “(1) he disputed the accuracy of an item
of information contained in his . . . consumer file [with the consumer reporting
agency]; (2) [the agency] did not reinvestigate free of charge and either record the
current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file in the
manner prescribed by § 1681i(a)(5) within 30 days of notice of the dispute; (3) [the
agency’s] noncompliance was negligent or willful; (4) [plaintiff] suffered injury; and
(5) that injury was caused by [the agency’s] failure to reinvestigate and record the
current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file.” Ramirez
v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 4:25-CV-00443-P, 2026 WL 833868, at *8 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 26, 2026). A plaintiff must also make a threshold showing that the credit
information in question is inaccurate. 	Reyes, 140 F.4th at 286. 	Under FCRA,
information is inaccurate where it is either “patently incorrect . . . [or] it is misleading
in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit
decisions.” Reyes, 140 F.4th at 285 (cleaned up).
1. Plaintiff fails to plead an inaccuracy.
First, Plaintiff claims the credit report is inaccurate because it lists the date of
first delinquency as October 21, 2020, the date of last payment as May 1, 2021, and
a final payment on November 24, 2021, in the amount of $3,484.00. ECF 1 ¶ 17.
Plaintiff asserts these entries are contradictory and do not align with the explanation
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 10

6
provided by Westlake. 	Id. 	Plaintiff also alleges that the report shows 90-day late
payments in May and June 2024, despite the account having been charged off. Id. ¶
18. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that the lack of data for 2023 reflects missing
account history. Id.
The copy of the report, attached to the Complaint, undercuts Plaintiff’s alleged
inaccuracies. 	ECF 1-1. 	As Plaintiff claims, the report identifies a date of first
delinquency of October 21, 2020, and a date of last payment of May 1, 2021. 	Id.
Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing this timeline is inaccurate, even if the car was
sold at auction and the amount credited to her account later in May 2021 as she
alleged. ECF 1 ¶ 16. That a late payment was made while the account was charged
off does not demonstrate a contradiction or inaccuracy. Plaintiff does not allege the
2024 payments were not made and a charged-off account can still carry a legally
valid balance to be paid. See Burris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:25-CV-
2570-B-BK, 2026 WL 1690084, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2026) (explaining a
charge-off is an accounting decision by a lender that treats the debt as a loss even
though the debt is still owed), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:25-CV-
2570-B-BK, 2026 WL 1688325 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2026). Finally, Plaintiff fails
to identify how a lack of account history for certain periods is inaccurate or
misleading, particularly since she fails to allege any account activity occurred and
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 10

7
should be displayed. 	In short, Plaintiff fails to allege inaccurate or misleading
information appeared in the report.
2. Plaintiff fails to plead facts meeting the other elements.
Plaintiff also fails to state a claim because her Complaint lacks factual
allegations establishing Defendant’s failure to reinvestigate. 	Plaintiff alleges
Equifax 	conducted 	a 	reinvestigation 	and 	recorded 	the 	current 	status 	of 	the
information as disputed. ECF 1 ¶¶ 14-16, 36. She does not allege the reinvestigation
was untimely. Id. ¶¶ 34-37. To the extent Plaintiff contends the reinvestigation was
deficient for relying solely on information Westlake supplied (id. ¶ 36), including
“automated furnisher responses” (ECF 16 at 3), she fails to provide any facts to
support a deficiency. The Fifth Circuit has held that reliance on automated furnisher
responses can be reasonable in the reinvestigation context depending on the
circumstances. Barron v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 802 F. App’x 161, 162–63
(5th Cir. 2020). 	Plaintiff provides no facts demonstrating reliance on Westlake
responses was unreasonable. 	Plaintiff further fails to allege facts indicating any
purported noncompliance was willful or negligent and fails to allege a causal
connection between the alleged violation and her claimed damages. 	Therefore,
Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 10

8
B. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under § 1681e(b).
Section 	1681e(b) 	provides: 	“[w]henever 	a 	consumer 	reporting 	agency
prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the
report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To state a claim under § 1681e(b), a plaintiff
must plead facts showing: (1) inaccurate information was included in his or her credit
report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to the defendant agency’s failure to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) plaintiff was
injured; and (4) the injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.
Warner v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 3:23-CV-1286-E, 2025 WL 714243, at *6
(N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2025) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 3:23-CV-1286-E, 2025 WL 714165 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2025). As with § 1681i,
a factual inaccuracy is a threshold requirement. 	Irvin v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
No. 4:19-CV-03688, 2020 WL 4547152, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2020) (collecting
cases).
Plaintiff contends Equifax reported allegedly inaccurate payment information
on her credit report and then failed to properly address the inaccuracies after her
dispute. 	ECF 1 ¶¶ 38-40. Even assuming Defendant failed to correct inaccurate
information after Plaintiff brought the inconsistency to its attention, such a failure
does not demonstrate that Defendant failed to follow a reasonable policy. Plaintiff’s
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 10

9
Complaint is devoid of facts regarding Defendant’s policies or whether they are
reasonable. See Gill v. Chex Sys., Inc., No. CV H-26-2725, 2026 WL 1260310, at *2
(S.D. Tex. May 7, 2026) (dismissing a claim under § 1681e(b) because plaintiff
failed to plead allegations regarding defendant’s procedures or how they were
unreasonable). Further, the Complaint lacks factual allegations which, if true, would
establish a causal link between the alleged report inaccuracy and her claimed
injuries.
IV. 	Conclusion and Recommendation.
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant
Equifax’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 13) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against
Equifax be DISMISSED.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 10

10
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on July 24, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-05563 Document 38 Filed 07/24/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 10