Howard v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEPHEN HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-3902
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Stephen Howard, representing himself, sued Equifax under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
(Docket Entry No. 1). Howard alleged that his consumer file included “a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
public-record entry” and “status-code errors on several tradelines.” 	(Docket Entry No. 11 ¶ 8).
Equifax moved to dismiss because Howard had previously filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
(Docket Entry No. 7). 	Because Howard previously declared bankruptcy, his credit report is
accurate, and the court grants the motion to dismiss.
I. 	Background
Stephen Howard sued Equifax Information Services, LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act. 	(Docket Entry Nos. 1, 11). 	He alleges that his consumer file includes “a Chapter 13
bankruptcy public-record entry” and “status-code errors on several tradelines.” (Docket Entry No.
11 ¶ 8). The credit report includes the following information:
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03902 Document 16 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
(Docket Entry No. 1 at 8, 17, 29).
Howard disputed that report, and Equifax responded with letters stating that they were
“verified by LexisNexis.” (Docket Entry No. 11 ¶ 10). Because Equifax did not “delete or correct
the information,” Howard sought information from the sources of Equifax’s information. (Id. ¶¶
10–21).
The Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas
responded to Howard, stating that it does not verify information for credit-reporting agencies. (Id.
¶ 11). LexisNexis later “determined” that “the Bankruptcy Entry was ‘unverifiable,’ removed it
from its files after research that included the PACER Services Center, and notified [Howard] that
it had disputed the matter with Equifax on December 18, 2024.” (Id. ¶ 18). Equifax did not delete
the bankruptcy entry from Howard’s file.
Notably, Howard does not allege that the information about his bankruptcy is inaccurate.
He instead alleges that Equifax’s sources did not support the information reported in his credit file.
II. 	The Legal Standard
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). Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a),
which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
Case 4:25-cv-03902 Document 16 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” 	Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“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.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Revive Rx, LLC, 812 F. Supp.
3d 708, 723 (S.D. Tex. 2025) (quoting Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)).
III. 	Analysis
Howard asserts two causes of action: (1) failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
and delete unverifiable information, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i; and (2) failure to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To prevail on both
claims, the plaintiff must prove that the credit file contains an inaccuracy. If disputed information
is “not inaccurate,” then a plaintiff’s reinvestigation claim under § 1681i “necessarily fail[s].”
Shimon v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 431 F. Supp. 3d 115, 122 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), aff’d, 994 F.3d 88
(2d Cir. 2021); see Thomas v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 1:18-cv-0143, 2019 WL 948996, at
*2 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2019); Okwo v. Houston Methodist the Woodlands, No. CV H-21-4063, 2022
WL 3104862, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2022), aff’d, No. 22-20457, 2023 WL 1256576 (5th Cir.
Jan. 31, 2023). And if the disputed information is not inaccurate, then a plaintiff cannot “maintain
Case 4:25-cv-03902 Document 16 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
a cause of action under § 1681e(b).” Shimon, 431 F. Supp. 3d at 120 (quoting Okocha v. Trans
Union LLC, No. 08-cv-3107, 2011 WL 2837594, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011)).
Howard’s claims fail because the disputed information is not inaccurate. Howard does not
allege that his credit report is inaccurate. The reference to the bankruptcy filing is supported by
the information on the public court docket. See Cinnel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n. 6 (5th
Cir. 1994) (“In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may permissibly refer to matters of
public record.”); Trendsetter Invs., LLC v. Hyperdynamics Corp., No. CIV.A.H-06-0746, 2007
WL 172627, at *16 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2007).
The public docket for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
Texas shows a case filed by Stephen Bernard Howard. 	See In re Howard, No. 24-30453 (S.D.
Tex.) (Lopez, J.). The case number matches the one reported in Howard’s file; the docket shows
that Howard filed a Chapter 13 petition in February 2024. The case was later dismissed, through
both an order and a final decree. (Bankr. Docket Entry Nos. 1, 32, 36). Howard does not allege
an inaccuracy, and the record does not show one. Both his claims fail.
IV. 	Conclusion
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 7), is granted, with prejudice
because amendment would be futile. A final judgment is entered separately.
SIGNED on April 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03902 Document 16 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4