United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division
PULLIAM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Trans Union
LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 28) to which Plaintiff filed a
response (ECF No. 30) and Defendant replied (ECF No. 33).
Upon consideration of Trans Union's motion and reply,
Plaintiff's response, the relevant law, and the record
herein, the Court denies Trans Union's motion.
alleges Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) reported
an account, debt, and charge-off by GreenSky on
Plaintiff's credit report and, despite receiving notice
the account was unauthorized, did not investigate, verify, or
notate Plaintiff's dispute. See ECF No. 26 at
11-13 ¶¶ 76-89. Trans Union moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's lawsuit arguing Plaintiff alleges a legal
dispute with GreenSky rather than a violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by Trans Union. ECF No. 28 at 5. Trans
Union submits this Court must dismiss Plaintiff's claims
because Plaintiff failed to allege a factual inaccuracy on
Plaintiff's credit report. Id. at 1.
presented with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a
court generally “must assess whether the complaint
contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face[.]” United States v. Bollinger Shipyards
Inc., 775 F.3d 255, 257 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). “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.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007)). Although a plaintiff's factual allegations need
not establish the defendant is probably liable, they must
establish more than a “sheer possibility” a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Determining
plausibility is a “context-specific task, ” and
must be performed in light of a court's “judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Where a plaintiff's factual allegations do not provide
enough information to “nudge a claim across the line
from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be
dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570;
accord Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
assessing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court's review is generally limited to the complaint and
any documents attached to the motion to dismiss referred to
in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claims.
Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., 551
U.S. 308, 322 (2007); In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). When
reviewing the complaint, the “court accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Martin K. Eby Constr.
Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir.
Union contends Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails
to state a claim under sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). ECF No. 28 at
4, 9. Specifically, Trans Union argues Plaintiff (1) couched
a “legal dispute regarding the validity of the
debt” as a FCRA violation and (2) concedes the GreenSky
debt was incurred. Id. at 6. Plaintiff responds any
account with GreenSky was unauthorized, Trans Union's
report of any “installment loan with Gree[n]Sky is
inaccurate, ” and had Trans Union investigated
Plaintiff's dispute, it would have learned GreenSky's
reporting “was inaccurate and unverifiable.” ECF
No. 30 at 11.
plausibly allege a violation of section 1681e(b) Plaintiff
must plead sufficient facts to show (1) Plaintiff's
consumer report contained inaccurate information; (2) the
inaccuracy was due to Trans Union's failure to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy;
(3) Plaintiff suffered a cognizable injury; and (4) causation
linking Trans Union's failure to Plaintiff's injury.
Saunders v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No.
16-CV-00525-LY, 2017 WL 3940942, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 3,
2017), aff'd sub nom. Ostiguy v. Equifax Info.
Servs., L.L.C., 738 Fed.Appx. 281 (5th Cir.
2018) (citing Norman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
No. 3:12-CV-128-B, 2017 WL 3940942 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2013).
plausibly allege a violation of section 1681i, Plaintiff must
plead sufficient facts to show (1) her consumer credit report
contained inaccurate information; (2) she disputed the
accuracy of information on her credit file directly with
Trans Union; (3) Trans Union did not reinvestigate free of
charge and either record the current status of the disputed
information or delete the item from the file; (4) Trans
Union's noncompliance was negligent or willful; (5)
Plaintiff suffered injury; and (6) the injury was caused by
Trans Union's failure to reinvestigate. Id.
(quoting Norman, 2017 WL 3940942, *3) (quotation
the threshold question is whether Plaintiff alleged an
inaccuracy on her credit report. See Toliver v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., 973 F.Supp.2d 707, 715
(S.D. Tex. 2013) (“In order to establish a prima facie
case under § 1681e(b), a consumer must produce some
evidence of an inaccuracy in her credit report.”).
See also Walters v. Certegy Check Servs., Inc., No.
A-17-CV-1100-SS, 2018 WL 1278212, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12,
2018) (in which the court “join[ed] other courts in
concluding a plaintiff must first contend a consumer report
contained inaccurate information to establish a claim under
§ 1681i for failure to conduct a reasonable
investigation”) (collecting cases). A credit report
entry is “inaccurate” within the meaning the FCRA
if (1) “it is patently incorrect” or (2)
“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) (citing
Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (5th Cir.
1986) (finding section 1681 “imposes a duty of
reasonable care in the preparation of a consumer report"
and holding the defendant violated the FCRA where,
notwithstanding the credit reporting agency's knowledge
of the facts, it marked a credit entry "litigation
pending" without specifying it was the plaintiff/obligor
who had initiated suit against the creditor).
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges
Trans Union included inaccurate information-an unauthorized
account, debt, and subsequent charge-off she did not incur-in
Plaintiff's consumer report. ECF No. 26 at 12-13
¶¶ 82, 89. Plaintiff alleges the inaccuracy was due
to Trans Union's failure to follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer report
such that Trans Union was on notice due to “several
similar consumer disputes involving similar claims of
unauthorized accounts opened by GreenSky, ”
Id. at 13 ¶ 84, and because Plaintiff notified
Trans Union the report is disputed. Id. at 12 ¶
82. Plaintiff alleges Trans Union's failure to verify the
accuracy of the information it reported damaged her in the
form of decreased credit score, increased percentage rates
and monthly payments, and denial of credit application.
Id. at 13-14 ¶ 90, 92. Plaintiff alleges and
Trans Union does not dispute Trans Union did nothing to
verify the accuracy of the information submitted by GreenSky
nor did Trans Union reinvestigate after being notified by
Plaintiff the information provided by GreenSky is disputed.
Id. at 12-13 ¶¶ 82, 85.
the Court DENIES Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 28). The
Court further DENIES Trans Union's Motion ...