Smith v. Transunion et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PAIGE SMITH, 	§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V.
TRANSUNION LLC, et. al.,
Defendants.
§ 	Civil Action No. H-25-6271
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC's Motion to
Dismiss (Document No. 	14). Having considered the motion, submissions, and
applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is a matter arising from the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
On December 24, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Paige Smith ("Smith") filed suit against
Defendants Transunion LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Drive Taverna Collection, LLC,
and The Taverna Collection Inc., alleging violations of the Federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"). With respect to the pending motion, Smith alleges that
Defendant LVNV Funding LLC ("LVNV") improperly "furnished a collection
tradeline to TransUnion associated with a debt originally arising from a Navy
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06271 Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

Federal Credit Union Account." 1 In layman's terms, Smith contends that Defendants
in this matter seek to improperly enforce an outstanding consumer debt originally
arising from a Navy Federal Credit Union account assigned to Smith.
Based on the foregoing, on December 24, 2025, Smith filed suit against
Defendants in this matter alleging a single claim for willful noncompliance against
all Defendants, two claims for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681 against Defendant
TransUnion LLC, and a single claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) against
Defendant LVNV. 2 On February 2, 2026, Defendant LVNV moved to dismiss
Smith's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 3
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule l 2(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). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell At!.
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at ,r 6.
2 See Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 4.
3 See Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 14 at 1-
13.
2
Case 4:25-cv-06271 Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the .
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)( 6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " [t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quotingMartinK. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
"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.'" Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendant 	LVNV 	moves 	to 	dismiss 	Smith's 	complaint 	against 	them,
contending that Smith fails to identify any inaccuracy with respect to LVNV' s
handling of Smith's credit account or any factual content regarding what LVNV did
or failed to do. The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
To prevail on a claim pursuant against a credit furnisher such as LVNV, a
plaintiff must allege that: (1) she disputed the accuracy of information with a
3
Case 4:25-cv-06271 Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

consumer reporting agency; (2) the agency notified the furnisher of the consumer's
dispute; and (3) the furnisher thereafter failed to conduct an investigation, correct
any inaccuracies, or notify the agency of the results of its investigation. See 15
U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). A credit entry is "inaccurate" within the meaning of the FCRA
if "it is patently incorrect" or "is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that
it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions." Sepulvado v. CSC Credit
Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir. 1998).
Here, LVNV contends that Smith does not identify any specific piece of
information that LVNV furnished to Trans Union any information that was factually
inaccurate. 	LVNV 	further 	contends 	that 	Smith fails 	to 	allege 	any perceived
inaccuracy with regards to the underlying debt. With regards to Smith's claim for
willful noncompliance, LVNV contends that Smith fails to plead any facts that
support a finding of wrongdoing, let alone a finding of willfulness. The Court
construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
In doing so, the Court has independently reviewed the complaint filed in this matter,
and cannot identify any information, specific or otherwise, alleging that LVNV
furnished to Trans Union any information that was incorrect or misleading. Even
construing the complaint liberally, the Court finds that Smith offers no plausible
factual basis for her assertion that LVNV either reported inaccurate information to a
crediting agency or was willful in doing so. Given the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance
4
Case 4:25-cv-06271 Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

that a plaintiff must provide enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face, the Court finds that LVNV' s motion to dismiss should be granted and
Smith's claims against LVNV should be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS 	that 	Defendant 	LVNV 	Funding, 	LLC's 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss
(Document No. 14) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Paige Smith's claims 	against Defendant LVNV
Funding, LLC is DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 0..7 day of February, 2026.
5
eed(~-DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-06271 Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5