United States District Court, W.D. Texas
HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
HIGHTOWER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
this Court are Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to
Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, filed June 24, 2019 (Dkt.
No. 9); Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Trans Union,
LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, filed
July 9, 2019 (Dkt. No. 11); Trans Union LLC's Reply in
Support of its Motion to Dismiss, filed July 15, 2019 (Dkt.
No. 13); and Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of
Defendant's Trans Union's Motion to Dismiss, filed
October 2, 2019 (Dkt. No. 16).
10, 2019, the District Court referred the above motion to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas (“Local Rules”).
Sabrina Rodriguez alleges that she discovered an error on her
credit report issued by Defendant Trans Union, LLC
(“Trans Union”) on October 23, 2018.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the credit report
erroneously stated that she owed a monthly payment of $345 on
an account (the “Santander Account”) she
previously held with Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
(“Santander”). Plaintiff alleges that the
Santander Account is closed and that she no longer has any
obligation to make monthly payments on it. On November 12,
2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Trans Union requesting that
it report the monthly payment on the Account as $0. Plaintiff
alleges that Trans Union referred the matter to Santander.
Plaintiff contends that Trans Union and Santander
(“Defendants”) have refused to correct the amount
owed on the Santander Account as requested.
April 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that
Trans Union's inaccurate credit report and
Defendants' failure to correct the error on the Santander
Account violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 (“FCRA”). Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that Santander negligently and willfully failed to
conduct a proper investigation and reinvestigation of her
dispute and failed to direct Trans Union to correct the
amount owed, in violation of § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA.
Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union negligently and willfully
failed to maintain and follow reasonable procedures to assure
the maximum possible accuracy of the information pertaining
to Plaintiff it reported to one or more third parties and
failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, in violation
of § 1681e(b) and § 1681i of the FCRA. Plaintiff
alleges that she “has suffered actual damages, mental
anguish and suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment.”
Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 31, 38.
24, 2019, Trans Union filed the instant Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that “Trans Union's reporting of the
payment terms on the Santander Account was accurate, and
because Plaintiff cannot show an inaccuracy, she does not
have a viable claim under either 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e
or 1681i of the [FCRA].” Dkt. No. 9 at p. 1.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to
dismiss an action for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court
“accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them
in the light most favorable to the [nonmovant].” In
re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme
Court has explained that a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the [nonmovant] pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the [movant] is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Id.
court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents
attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the
motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and
referenced by the complaint. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.),
L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.
2010). Because Plaintiff's Complaint expressly references
and relies on her dispute correspondence with Trans
Union and her Trans Union reinvestigation
results to support her claims, the Court may
consider this evidence without converting this Motion to
Dismiss to a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Collins v.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir.
2000) (holding that district court properly considered
documents attached to motion to dismiss since they were
central to plaintiff's claims and referred to in her
complaint); Her v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2019
WL 4295280, at *2 (N.D.Ga. July 12, 2019) (finding that court
could consider dispute letter attached to Trans Union's
motion to dismiss without converting motion to dismiss to
motion for summary judgment), report and recommendation
adopted, 2019 WL 4295279 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 9, 2019).
Complaint alleges that Trans Union violated §§
1681e(b) and 1681i of the FCRA by inaccurately reporting on
her credit report that she owed a monthly payment of $345 on
the Santander Account and by failing to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation of the alleged inaccuracy. The Court will
address each claim to determine whether Plaintiff has alleged
a plausible claim for relief.
Plaintiff's claim ...