Gill v. Chex Systems, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHENEVIAL GILL,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
V.
CHEX SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
§ 	Civil Action No. H-26-2725
§
§
§
§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Chex Systems, Inc.' s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with Prejudice (Document No. 6). Having considered
the Defendant's motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that
the Defendant's motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This 	is 	a matter 	arising 	under the 	Federal 	Fair 	Credit Reporting 	Act
("FCRA"). Pro se Plaintiff Chenevial Gill ("Gill") brings suit against Defendant
Chex Systems, Inc. ("Chex"), a nation-wide consumer reporting agency. Gill alleges
that Chex violated the FCRA by "willfully and/or negligently fail[ing] to ensure the
accuracy of information in plaintiffs consumer report, and fail[ing] to conduct a
reasonable 	investigation 	after plaintiff disputed 	inaccurate 	information." 1 Gill
1 Plaintiff's Initial Complaint, Document No. 1, Exhibit 2 at 7.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 07, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

further alleges that Chex caused Gill to "suffer harm, including the denial of banking
services and emotional distress in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act." 2
Based on the foregoing, on February 27, 2026, Gill filed suit, prose, in the
Justice Court of Harris County, Texas, Precinct 5, Place 1. 	On April 6, 2026, Chex
removed this matter to this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction. On April
13, 2026, Chex filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. 3 Gill has failed to respond to Chex's pending motion to dismiss either
by the original response deadline or the date of this Order.
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). 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 Atl.
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, 5 50 U.S. at 555).
2 Id.
3 See Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. 's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with
Prejudice, Document No. 6 at 1-15.
2
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

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) ( quoting Martin K 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
Chex moves to dismiss Gill's complaint, contending that Gill fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure l 2(b)(6). The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 	Gill did not respond to Chex's motion to dismiss,
failing to rebut or offer evidence to counter Chex's contentions. Pursuant to Local
Rule 7.4, failure to respond is taken as a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex.
Local R. 7.4. Regardless of Gill's failure to respond to Chex's motion to dismiss, the
Court will consider the merits of Gill's claim against Chex.
3
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

Gill alleges that Chex "willfully and/or negligently failed 	to 	ensure the
accuracy of information in plaintiff's consumer report, and failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation after plaintiff disputed inaccurate information." 4 Chex
notes for the Court Gill's failure to specify which section of the FCRA Chex
supposedly violated, but construe Gill's complaint to allege violations of sections §
1681 e(b) and § 1681 i. Gill offers no rebuttal. The Court will independently consider
both sections of the FCRA Chex has construed is stated against them, and whether
Gill states a claim upon which reliefcan be granted with respect to either section.
A. Section 168Je(b)
Section 1681 e(b) of the FRCA states that "[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 allege sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that the credit reporting
agency failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy of the consumer report.
Here, Chex contends that Gill's complaint includes· no factual allegations
regarding Chex's procedures or how they are unreasonable. A review of Gill's
4 Plaintiff's Initial Complaint, Document No. 1, Exhibit 2 at 7.
4
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

complaint reveals a singular, conclusory sentence that reads as follows: "Defendant
ChexSystems, Inc. willfully and/or negligently failed to ensure the accuracy of
information in plaintiffs consumer report[.]" 5 Considering the Fifth Circuit's clear
guidance that "complaints containing conclusory allegations, absent reference to
material facts, will not survive motions to dismiss[,]" the Court determines that
Gill's 	claim 	brought pursuant to 	Section 	1681e(b) 	of the 	FCRA 	should 	be
dismissed. 6 The Court now turns to Gill's claim brought pursuant to Section 1681 i.
B. Section 1681 i
Section 1681 i of the FCRA states numerous procedures consumer reporting
agencies must follow in cases of disputed credit reporting accuracy. Chex contends
that Gill fails to identify any specific subsection of Section 1681 i that Chex allegedly
violated. Gill offers no rebuttal. A review of Gill's complaint reveals that Plaintiff
only 	allegation 	against 	Chex 	is 	that 	Chex 	"failed 	to 	conduct 	a 	reasonable
investigation."7 Chex notes for the Court that Gill's complaint does not include any
allegations as to: (1) whether Gill requested Chex to conduct an investigation; (2)
whether Gill received a response from Chex regarding her requested investigation;
or (3) what the investigation Gill supposedly requested was even pertaining to.
s Id.
6 Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550, 1553 (5th Cir. 1988).
7 Plaintiff's Initial Complaint, Document No. 1, Exhibit 2 at 7.
5
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

Considering 	the 	Fifth 	Circuit's 	clear 	guidance 	that 	"complaints 	containing
conclusory allegations, absent reference to material facts, will not survive motions
to dismiss[,]" the Court determines that Gill's claim brought pursuant to Section
1681 i of the FCRA should be dismissed. 8
Even construing the complaint liberally, the Court finds that Gill offers no
plausible factual basis for her assertions against Chex. Given the Fifth Circuit's
guidance that a Plaintiff must provide enough facts to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face, the Court finds that Gill's claims brought pursuant to the FCRA
should be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant Chex Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint with Prejudice (Document No. 6) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Chenevial Gill's claims against Defendant Chex
Systems, Inc. are DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this _1 day of May, 2026.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
8 Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550, 1553 (5th Cir. 1988).
6
Case 4:26-cv-02725 Document 8 Filed 05/07/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6