Siantou v. Experian Services Corporation

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
STEPHANE SIANTOU,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
A-24-CV-1130-RP
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Before the court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s (“Experian”) Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21, Mot.), Plaintiff Stephane Siantou’s (“Siantou”) Response (Dkt.
26, Resp.), Experian’s Reply and Motion to Strike Siantou’s Response (Dkt. 28, Rep.), Siantou’s
Motion to Strike Experian’s Reply (Dkt. 29), and all related briefing.1 After reviewing the
pleadings and relevant case law, the court makes the following recommendation.
I. 	B ACKGROUND2
Siantou, proceeding pro se, asserts claims for alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state-law violations. See Dkt. 1-2 at 7-26 (Compl.); 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq. Specifically, Siantou alleges that Experian, a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”)
as defined by the FCRA, negligently or willfully (1) failed to maintain reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy in violation of Section 1681e(b); (2) failed to conduct a
1 The motion was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation by United States District Judge
Robert Pitman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of
the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Text Order dated Oct. 28,
2025.
2 Summary judgment evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Griffin v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216, 221 (5th Cir. 2011).
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 18

2
reasonable reinvestigation of a disputed account in violation of Section 1681i(a) (collectively, the
“FCRA Claims”); and (3) is liable for invasion of privacy and (4) negligence per se with malice
(collectively, the “State Law Claims”). Compl. ¶¶ 8.00-8.06.10. The basis of Siantou’s claims are
two debts that Siantou alleges Experian negligently and/or willfully misreported on Siantou’s
credit report. Compl. ¶¶ 5.07-5.09, 5.13-5.17.
Siantou asserts he first discovered these two debts were in collection in late October or
early November 2022 upon being denied a loan.3 Dkt. 26 at 34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.) ¶ 3; Dkt. 26
at 38, Ex. B (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Interrogs.) at 14. The first debt (the “Medical Debt”) regards
medical bills Siantou incurred in August 2020 that were sent to collection in August 2022. Compl.
¶ 5.11-5.13; Siantou Decl. ¶ 3. Siantou disputed the Medical Debt with Experian on October 20,
2022. Dkt. 21-2 (Hamilton Decl.) ¶ 14. That same day, Experian investigated the Medical Debt,
determined it was a low-balance medical debt, deleted the debt from Siantou’s credit report, and
conveyed this information to Siantou. Hamilton Decl. ¶ 15; Dkt. 21-1 at 1, Ex. A (Oct. 20 Dispute
Results). Experian asserts the Medical Debt has never been re-reported, which Siantou does not
dispute. Hamilton Decl. ¶ 17; Dkt. 21-1 at 6, Ex. B (Oct. 20 Credit Report).
The second debt regards real property insurance issued by Safeco Insurance (the “Safeco
Debt”). Compl. 5.11-5.13. The Safeco Debt was first reported by Safeco to Experian on October
31, 2022. Dkt. 21-2 (Hamilton Decl.) ¶ 18. Siantou disputed the debt on November 3, 2022, and
he requested that Experian delete the debt or indicate that it was under dispute. Id. ¶ 19; see Dkt.
26 at 34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5 (asserting Siantou called about the account in late October
2022 or very early November 2022). Following Siantou’s call, Experian sent Siantou a letter, dated
3 Siantou does not provide this loan application, name where he applied for this loan, or provide a loan denial
response from this time period.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 18

3
November 3, 2022, informing him how to complete an Identity Theft Report.4 Dkt. 21-1 at 23,
Ex. C (Identity Theft Letter). That same day, Experian also sent an automated dispute verification
form (“ACDV”) to Safeco.5 See Dkt. 21-1 at 26, Ex. D (ACDV Resp.) (listing “Date Sent” as
“11/03/2022”). After calling Experian, Siantou called Safeco and found that Safeco had
“erroneously sent [Siantou’s] homeowner insurance account to collection.” Siantou Decl. ¶ 7.
Siantou asserts he called Experian to share this information and Experian responded that it could
not update Siantou’s account without Safeco’s instruction. Id. ¶ 8.
Safeco responded to the ACDV on November 4, 2022, stating that the “[a]ccount
information [is] accurate as of date reported.” Dkt. 21-1 at 26, Ex. D (ACDV Resp.). However, on
November 14, 2022, Safeco instructed Experian to remove the Safeco Debt from Siantou’s credit
report. Dkt. 21-2 (Hamilton Decl.) ¶ 23. Experian asserts it ceased reporting the Safeco Debt that
same day, id., and issued dispute results to Siantou on November 21, 2022. Id. ¶ 24; Dkt. 21-1 at
28, Ex. E (Nov. 21 Dispute Results). Experian asserts the Safeco Debt has never been re-reported.
Hamilton Decl. ¶ 25.
Siantou applied for loans from Barclays and a credit line increase from Bank of America
(“BOA”), and on November 22 and November 21, 2022, the institutions denied his applications
due to an account being in collection on Siantou’s credit report.6 See Dkt. 26-1 at 1, Ex. J (Barclays
Email); Dkt. 26-1 at 4, Ex. J (BOA Email). Siantou alleges that he was denied loans and credit
4 Experian asserts that Siantou alleged he was a victim of identity theft when he first reported this debt. Hamilton
Decl. ¶¶ 19-20; Identity Theft Letter; see Dkt. 21-1 at 26, Ex. D (Automated Dispute Verification Resp.) (listing
“Consumer claims true identity fraud” as the reason for disputing the account). Siantou claims he never alleged the
debt was incorrect due to identity theft. Dkt. 26 (Resp.) at 5. The undersigned finds this dispute to be immaterial.
5 Experian asserts that its procedure following a consumer dispute is as follows: first, Experian considers the
information provided by the consumer; second, if the consumer provided supporting documentation, Experian
authenticates it and determines whether it is sufficient to delete or update the account; third, if the consumer did not
provide supporting documentation or such documentation is insufficient to update the account, Experian sends an
ACDV to the furnisher of the disputed information; finally, Experian will follow the furnisher’s recommendation to
modify or delete the account, if necessary. Hamilton Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.
6 Siantou does not allege when he applied for the loans, nor does he attach evidence showing the same.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 18

4
totaling $120,000; he experienced emotional pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, stress,
anxiety, and humiliation; and he incurred medical bills for treatment of said conditions. Dkt. 26 at
34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.) ¶¶ 11, 13.
Siantou filed his action in state court,7 and Experian timely removed to federal court on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 1 at 1. Experian moved for summary judgment on the
following grounds: (1) the Medical Debt was deleted on October 20, 2022, shortly after it began
to be reported and the same day Siantou disputed it; (2) Siantou has produced no evidence showing
the Safeco Debt was reported incorrectly by Experian or that Experian failed to maintain
reasonable procedures; (3) Experian also deleted the Safeco Debt within days of the dispute,
including within the thirty-day window provided by the FCRA; (4) Siantou’s state-law claims are
barred by 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e); (5) in the event Experian reported the Safeco Debt to a third party,
such a reporting made in good faith is privileged;8 and (6) Siantou has produced no evidence of
damages sufficient to confer the court with standing. Dkt. 21 (Mot.) at 5. Siantou argues that there
are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Experian violated the FCRA and whether his
state-law claims are preempted. Dkt. 26 (Resp.) at 2.
II. 	MOTIONS TO S TRIKE
Within its Reply to its summary judgment motion, Experian requests that the court strike
Siantou’s Response for procedural defects and Siantou’s Exhibit L for containing confidential
communications between the parties, regarding settlement, protected by Federal Rule of Evidence
408. Dkt. 28, (Rep.) at 1-2; FED. R. EVID. 408. Siantou subsequently filed a Motion to Strike
7 Siantou also filed contemporaneous suits against Safeco, Siantou v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, No.
5:24-cv-00721-OLG-RBF, and North American Savings Bank, N.A. (with whom he initially entered the mortgage
underlying the Safeco Debt), Siantou v. North American Savings Bank, N.A., No. 1:24-cv-00725-ADA.
8 Neither party expounds upon this argument; therefore, the court will not address it.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 18

5
Experian’s Reply (Dkt. 29), requesting that the court strike Experian’s Reply in its entirety and
arguing that the Reply is frivolous, immaterial, and impertinent. Dkt. 29 at 1.
When evaluating a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. C IV. P. 12(f). Such matters should be
stricken only where they possess “no possible relation to the controversy.” United States v. Coney,
689 F.3d 365, 379 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty.,
Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962)) (citation modified). The decision to grant a motion to
strike is within the court’s discretion. Jacobs v. Tapscott, 2004 WL 2921806, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Dec. 16, 2004), aff'd on other grounds, 277 F. App’x 483 (5th Cir. 2008). “Both because striking
a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy, and because it often is sought by the movant simply as
a dilatory tactic, motions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.”
FDIC v. Niblo, 821 F. Supp. 441, 449 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 1993).
A. 	Siantou’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 29)
Siantou’s Motion primarily attacks arguments made by Experian in its Reply to the motion
for summary judgment. See generally Dkt. 29. Siantou argues that Experian’s arguments in the
Reply are immaterial and frivolous; however, the undersigned finds Experian’s arguments to be
relevant and material. Siantou had his opportunity to respond to Experian’s summary judgment
briefing and cannot now use a motion to strike as a vehicle to advance further arguments against
summary judgment. Accordingly, the court DENIES Siantou’s Motion to Strike Experian’s Reply
(Dkt. 29).
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 18

6
B. 	Experian’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 28, Rep.)
Striking mere portions of a pleading is a drastic remedy, and Siantou is proceeding pro se.
Thus, the court declines to strike Siantou’s entire response. However, the court does find Exhibit
L to be immaterial and impermissible under Rule 408. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that
Exhibit L be stricken from Siantou’s Response. Dkt. 26 at 125, Ex. L.
III. 	S UMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
only “if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine only if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of “informing the district
court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a
genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87
(1986); Wise v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 58 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1995). The parties may
satisfy their respective burdens by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence.
Estate of Smith v. United States, 391 F.3d 621, 625 (5th Cir. 2004).
The court will view the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
movant. Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216, 221 (5th Cir. 2011). The non-movant
must respond to the motion by setting forth particular facts indicating that there is a genuine issue
for trial. Miss. River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2000). However,
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 18

7
conclusory statements or declarations are not competent evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 2007). Pro se litigants are not
excused from this requirement. Bookman v. Shubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1004 (N.D. Tex. 1996).
However, it is well-settled that the court is obligated to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s
response to a summary judgment motion. Thorn v. McGary, 684 F. App’x 430, 432 (5th Cir. 2017).
“After the non-movant has been given the opportunity to raise a genuine factual issue, if no
reasonable juror could find for the non-movant, summary judgment will be granted.” Id.
IV. 	T HE FCRA
The FCRA is a statutory scheme designed to regulate the consumer reporting industry and
ensure fair and accurate credit reporting. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007).
The FCRA “defines a complex set of rights and obligations that attend the relationships among
and between the provider of a credit report, the user of that information and the consumer who is
made the subject of such a report.” Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., 158 F.3d 890, 895 (5th
Cir. 1998). There is no strict liability for a CRA’s failure to perfectly comply with the FCRA;
instead, the FCRA provides a private right of action against a CRA for its negligent or willful
failure to comply with the requirements of the Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n (willful), 1681o
(negligent). Siantou brought claims under two provisions of the FCRA, alleging that Experian
negligently and willfully violated its duty to accurately report under Section 1681e(b) and its duty
to investigate disputed information under Section 1681i.
Experian argues that Siantou cannot establish a claim under any provision of the FCRA.
Mot. at 6-10. Siantou disputes Experian’s arguments, arguing that summary judgment is
inappropriate because of the existence of fact issues. See generally Resp.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 18

8
A. 	Standing
As a preliminary matter, the undersigned finds that Siantou has established standing to
bring this claim. The Supreme Court addressed injuries sufficient to confer standing under the
FCRA and found that consumers “whose reports were disseminated to third parties suffered a
concrete injury in fact under Article III.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2209
(2021). Siantou produced an email from Barclays, a third party, denying Siantou’s loan application
on account of “one or more of [Siantou’s] accounts being reported as being in collection, as
reflected by [Siantou’s] Experian credit report.” Dkt. 26-1 at 1, Ex. J (Barclays Email).
Accordingly, the undersigned finds Siantou has established an injury-in-fact for the purposes of
standing and proceeds to address the merits of his claims.
B. 	15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA requires reasonable procedures in preparing credit reports
and 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 establish a violation of Section
1681e(b), a plaintiff must show: “(1) inaccurate information was included in his credit report; (2)
the inaccuracy was due to Experian’s failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy; (3) [the plaintiff] suffered injury; and (4) [the plaintiff’s] injury was caused by
the inclusion of the inaccurate entry.” Gray v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 1:23-CV-545-RP,
2024 WL 4945023, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2024). Siantou claims that Experian negligently
and willfully violated Section 1681e(b) by issuing inaccurate credit reports. Compl. ¶¶ 8.01-8.02.
Experian argues that neither debt is inaccurate, Experian employed reasonable procedures in its
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 18

9
reporting, and Siantou did not suffer any injury because Experian timely responded by deleting
both debts. Mot. at 6-8.
1. 	Inaccuracy
The threshold question is whether Siantou has demonstrated that his credit report contained
inaccurate information. See Potter v. GreenSky, LLC, 2019 WL 5295494, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct.
18, 2019). “A credit entry may be ‘inaccurate’ within the meaning of the statute either because it
is patently incorrect, or because it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be
expected to adversely affect credit decisions.” Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 895 (citation omitted).
Furthermore, the FCRA pertains to factual accuracy, not legal accuracy, and “[a]n argument that
a debt exists and is reported in the right amount but is invalid due to a violation of law is a legal
issue.” Glass v. Bread Fin. Holdings, Inc., No. 6:23-CV-686, 2024 WL 3100758, at *2 (W.D. Tex.
May 20, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Glass v. Midland Credit Mgt., Inc.,
No. W-23-CV-00686-ADA, 2024 WL 3093493 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2024).
Experian argues that Siantou has provided no evidence supporting the Medical Debt’s
inaccuracy. Mot. at 7. Siantou does not dispute the underlying services for the Medical Debt, and
the only evidence he offers in denying its existence is a conclusory statement in his declaration: “I
was not delinquent as to said medical bill,” which is not competent summary judgment evidence.
Siantou Decl. ¶ 7; see Turner, 476 F.3d at 345 (finding conclusory statements or declarations are
not competent evidence to defeat summary judgment). Siantou also argues that the Medical Debt
is inaccurate as a legal matter because low-balance medical debts should not be reported per
Experian’s own policy. Resp. at 17-18. But, the FCRA pertains to factual, not legal accuracy.
Glass, 2024 WL 3100758, at *2. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Siantou has not presented
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 9 of 18

10
competent summary judgment evidence to raise a fact issue that the Medical Debt was inaccurate,
and his claim regarding the Medical Debt fails on the threshold element.
Second, Experian argues that Siantou did not produce any evidence supporting a claim of
inaccuracy regarding the Safeco Debt. Mot. at 7. Siantou argues that the debt is inaccurate and
misleading in such a way as to negatively affect him. Resp. at 11. Siantou asserts that “per the
agreement between Plaintiff and Safeco and the agreement between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
mortgage servicer, Safeco was supposed to bill Plaintiff’s mortgage servicer and Plaintiff’s
mortgager service had the duty to pay bills from Safeco out of Plaintiff’s escrow account, which
Plaintiff had the duty to fund monthly.” Dkt. 26 at 38, Ex. B (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Interrogs.) at
14. Furthermore, Siantou’s sealed Exhibit I reflects that Siantou sufficiently funded his escrow
account in the months leading up to November 2022. Dkt. 24-1 at 10, Ex. I (Chase Acct.
Statements). Although Siantou admits that Safeco had not received Siantou’s payments, Dkt. 26
at 34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.) ¶ 7, the undersigned finds that Siantou has presented sufficient
evidence to at least raise a fact issue as to whether this credit entry was misleading in a way that
would adversely affect credit decisions.
2. 	Reasonable Procedures
The FCRA does not impose strict liability for inaccuracies in reporting, “but only a duty
of reasonable care in preparation of the report.” Thompson v. San Antonio Retail Merchs. Ass’n,
682 F.2d 509, 513 (5th Cir. 1982). It is Siantou’s burden to show that the inaccuracy resulted from
“a negligent or willful failure to use reasonable procedures.” Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 895. “The
standard of conduct by which the trier of fact must judge the adequacy of [a CRA’s] procedures is
what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances.” Thompson, 682 F.2d at 513.
Many courts have held it reasonable for CRAs to rely on their furnishers to provide accurate
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 10 of 18

11
information regarding payments from consumers, as the furnishers are in a better position to collect
that information. See Gray, 2024 WL 4945023, at *4 (finding it reasonable to rely on credit
furnishers in an investigation) (citing Toliver v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 973 F. Supp. 2d 707,
727-28 (S.D. Tex. 2013)). Siantou argues that Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures
because it did not correct inaccuracies after Siantou called and claimed that his credit report
contained inaccurate information. Resp. at 19-20.
Although the undersigned found Siantou failed to show the Medical Debt was inaccurate,
the undersigned further finds that Siantou fails to raise a fact issue regarding the reasonableness of
Experian’s procedures to ensure the Medical Debt’s accuracy. When Siantou first disputed the
Medical Debt, Experian investigated it and deleted it the same day. Dkt. 21-1 at 1, Ex. A (Oct. 20
Dispute Results); Dkt. 21-1 at 6, Ex. B (Oct. 20 Credit Report). Siantou provides no other support
for the court to find a negligent or willful failure by Experian to use reasonable procedures with
regard to the Medical Debt.
Regarding the Safeco Debt, Siantou also argues that Experian’s reliance on Safeco and its
response to Experian’s ACDV (automated dispute verification form) was improper because
Experian did not conduct its own independent investigation. Resp. at 19. Upon receiving Siantou’s
dispute, Experian immediately sent an ACDV to Safeco, and there is no evidence that Siantou
provided supporting documentation at the time of his dispute for Experian to investigate. Siantou
provides no evidence that any inaccuracy resulted from a negligent or willful failure to follow
procedures. Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Experian did employ reasonable
procedures in assessing the accuracy of the accounts, and the court finds Siantou has not raised a
material fact question as to this element of his claim for either debt.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 11 of 18

12
3. 	Injury and Damages
The third and fourth elements of Section 1681e(b) are injury and causation—that the
CRA’s inaccurate reporting was the cause of such an injury. As the non-moving party, it is
Siantou’s burden to affirmatively produce this evidence at this stage of the litigation to prove that
there is a genuine dispute as to his damages. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 585-87. Under the FCRA, a
“reduction in available credit, by itself, furnishes no basis for actual damages.” Smith v. Santander
Consumer USA, Inc., 703 F.3d 316, 317 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). “The real damage from an
erroneously reduced credit rating, which causes lower available borrowing limits, occurs if the
consumer’s cost of actual borrowing increases or if he is refused credit altogether.” Id.
Furthermore, the FCRA permits “recovery for humiliation and mental distress and for injury to
one’s reputation and creditworthiness.” Sapia v. Regency Motors of Metairie, Inc., 276 F.3d 747,
753 (5th Cir. 2002). However, “a claim related to emotional distress requires a degree of specificity
and must be supported by evidence of genuine injury, such as the observations of others,
corroborating testimony, or medical or psychological evidence.” Bacharach v. Suntrust Mortgage,
Inc., 827 F.3d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation modified). Siantou alleges damages resulting from
loan denials and emotional distress. Compl. ¶¶ 5.09-5.17.
Siantou has produced a loan denial and a credit line increase denial, and he alleges hundreds
of thousands of dollars in damages.9 Dkt. 26 at 34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.) ¶¶ 11, 12; Dkt. 26-1 at
1, Ex. J (Barclays Email); Dkt. 26-1 at 4, Ex. J (BOA Email). For Siantou to prevail on this claim,
he must present evidence sufficient to raise a material fact question on the issue of whether the
9 Siantou provides no support for his calculation of damages beyond his own conclusory declaration. See Siantou
Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12 (“I was denied loans/credit totaling $120,000 . . . [causing] me to incur an opportunity cost estimated,
as of January 17, 2025, at $176,460.”).
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 12 of 18

13
denial of the loans was proximately caused by Experian’s alleged misreporting of Siantou’s
payment history. Bacharach, 827 F.3d at 435.
BOA’s denial of Siantou’s credit line increase does not constitute a sufficient injury under
the FCRA, nor does it provide support a causation as the email does not mention Experian. Smith,
703 F.3d at 317; BOA Email. Instead, the email references the existence of a “derogatory public
record or collection” and explains that the time since that record was filed is “too short.” Id.
Furthermore, this email is dated November 21, 2022, the same day Experian provided notice to
Siantou that the Safeco Debt was deleted and one week following its deletion. Dkt. 21-2 (Hamilton
Decl.) ¶¶ 23-24. Siantou’s loan denial from Barclays, dated November 22, 2022, states, “at this
time we cannot approve your application due to one or more of your accounts being reported as
being in collection, as reflected by your Experian credit report.” Barclays Email. However, the
undersigned found Siantou failed to raise a fact issue for the first and/or second elements of his
claim for the Medical and Safeco Debts; therefore, Experian cannot be found to have negligently
or willfully caused any injury to Siantou.
The court’s findings also apply to Siantou’s claims for damages arising from emotional
and mental distress. However, assuming arguendo that Siantou has sufficiently established the
previous elements of a negligent or willful violation of Section 1681e(b) to support liability, he
still fails to create a material fact issue with respect to the existence of emotion or mental distress
damages. Siantou’s support for these damages stems entirely from Siantou’s statements and those
of two friends—Joachim Chameni and Landry Ngameni. Dkt. 26 at 34, Ex. A (Siantou Decl.);
Dkt. 26 at 117, Ex. E (Chameni Decl.); Dkt. 26 at 120, Ex. F (Ngameni Decl.).
The Fifth Circuit has held that when “testimony lacks specificity and fails to show the
nature and extent of the actual emotional harm[,] it does not satisfy the standards set in our
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 13 of 18

14
precedents.” Bacharach, 827 F.3d at 436 (finding the plaintiff’s “own vague and conclusory
deposition testimony, where she stated that she was a ‘complete wreck,’ and that, while unable to
‘recall exactly,’ she had seen a number of medical professionals due to her ‘anxiety and stress’” to
be insufficient to support damages for emotional distress). Chameni and Ngameni provide
corroboration, but only in the form of impermissibly vague and conclusory statements as described
in Bacharach. See Chameni Decl. ¶ 5 (“I saw Stephane Siantou constantly depressed, anxious,
nervous, stressed, and constantly mentally unwell.”), ¶ 10 (“I was very worried for him because
even though he was undergoing medical treatment, he just couldn’t seem to be getting back to
normalcy and to the jovial state I was used to seeing him in”); Ngameni Decl. ¶ 3 (“I saw Stephane
Siantou constantly seeking medical help to cope with the state of depression and anxiety he was
in.”). The undersigned finds Siantou has failed to raise a fact issue as to an emotional distress
injury. Accordingly, Experian is entitled to summary judgment on these elements.
4. 	Conclusion
Siantou’s claims for a negligent or willful violation of 1681e(b) rest on four elements, all
of which are essential to him prevailing in this suit. See Nichols v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 495
F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Where the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,
no genuine issue of material fact can exist.”). “Parties proceeding pro se are still required to
provide sufficient facts in support of their claims. Even under the rule of liberal construction, ‘mere
conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient.’” Watkins v. Experian, 2014 WL
12879669, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2014), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL
12879668 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2014). The court has found that Siantou has not produced sufficient
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 14 of 18

15
evidence to establish all the elements for a negligent violation of the duty prescribed by Section
1681e(b), let alone a willful violation.
“Only defendants who engaged in ‘willful misrepresentations or concealments’ have
committed a willful violation and are subject to punitive damages under § 1681n.” Stevenson v.
TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 293, 294 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1264
(5th Cir.1986)). To be willful, such misrepresentations must be the result of either a knowing
violation or reckless disregard of the law. Safeco, 551 U.S. at 57. Siantou has produced no evidence
that Experian acted willfully. Thus, Experian is entitled to summary judgment on both of Siantou’s
claims—negligent and willful violations of Section 1681e(b).
C. 	15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Section 1681i sets forth the CRA’s duty following a credit report dispute. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681i. Section 1681i provides the following:
[U]pon receiving notice that a consumer disputes “the completeness or accuracy of
any item of information” in her file, the consumer reporting agency must “conduct
a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is
inaccurate.” [15 U.S.C.] § 1681i(a)(1)(A). In conducting its reinvestigation, the
agency must “review and consider all relevant information submitted by the
consumer” regarding the disputed information. Id. at § 1681i(a)(4). Within 30 days
of notice of the dispute, the consumer reporting agency must either record the
current status of the disputed information in the consumer’s file, or delete or modify
the disputed item of information if it is “inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be
verified.” Id. at § 1681i(a)(1)(A), (5)(A). “If the reinvestigation does not resolve
the dispute, the consumer may file a brief statement setting forth the nature of the
dispute.” Id. at § 1681i(b). The consumer reporting agency must include this
statement, or a summary of the dispute, with the disputed information in future
consumer reports. Id. at § 1681i(c).
Reyes, 140 F.4th at 285. As with Section 1681e(b), “inaccuracy is a threshold requirement for
[Section] 1681i claims.” Id. at 286. Therefore, as pertains to the Medical Debt, Siantou’s claim
fails on the first element.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 15 of 18

16
Siantou argues that Experian’s reliance on the furnishers for its investigation was
unreasonable and that Experian has not provided sufficient evidence that it deleted either account
within thirty days. Resp. at 21-23. Siantou further argues that “nowhere in said elements [of
Section 1681i] does investigation or deletion of disputed account within thirty days allow a CRA
to escape liability.” Id. at 24.
The court disagrees. First, the court has previously addressed that it is reasonable to rely
on furnishers. See Gray, 2024 WL 4945023, at *4 (finding it reasonable to rely on credit furnishers
in an investigation). Second, a CRA investigating a dispute and deleting the disputed account
within thirty days is precisely the duty prescribed for CRAs by Section 1681i of the FCRA. See
Reyes, 140 F.4th at 285 (“Upon receiving notice that a consumer disputes . . . any item of
information in her file, the [CRA] must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation . . . [and] within 30
days of notice of the dispute, the [CRA] must either record the current status . . . or delete or modify
the disputed item . . . if it is inaccurate.”). Furthermore, Experian has established the date by which
each disputed account was removed, and each of those dates is within thirty days of Siantou
initially disputing the account. See Dkt. 21-1 at 1, Ex. A (Oct. 20 Dispute Results); Dkt. 21-1 at 6,
Ex. B (Oct. 20 Credit Report); Dkt. 21-1 at 28, Ex. E (Nov. 21 Dispute Results).
Siantou has failed to raise a fact issue that Experian failed to investigate or failed to update
Siantou’s credit report within thirty days of his dispute; and thus, the court cannot find that Siantou
has established a negligent or willful violation of this duty. Because Siantou has failed to establish
elements essential to his claims of negligent or willful violation of Section 1681i, Experian is
entitled to summary judgment on these claims. Nichols, 495 F.3d at 188.
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 16 of 18

17
V. 	S TATE -L AW CLAIMS
Siantou brings claims for invasion of privacy and negligence per se. However, the FCRA
preempts state law claims for invasion of privacy and negligence “except as to false information
furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e); see Young
v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 294 F.3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2002) (“The FCRA preempts state law
defamation or negligent reporting claims unless the plaintiff consumer proves ‘malice or willful
intent to injure’ him.”) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e)). The undersigned previously found that
Siantou has not demonstrated willful or malicious intent. Accordingly, Siantou’s state-law claims
are preempted by the FCRA and must be dismissed.
VI. 	O RDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons given above, the undersigned DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt.
29) and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 28 at
1-2). The undersigned ORDERS that Exhibit L to Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. 26 at 125) be
STRICKEN from the docket.
The undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Judge GRANT Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21).
VII. 	O BJECTIONS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 17 of 18

18
Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Douglass v.
United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED December 15, 2025.
_______________________________
MARK LANE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01130-RP Document 32 Filed 12/15/25 Page 18 of 18