govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_25-cv-01810-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
TREMAINE MANLEY, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
EXPERIAN INFORMATION 
SOLUTIONS, INC, et. al., 
Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
ORDER 
Civil Action No. H-25-1810 
Pending before the Court are Experian Information Solutions, Inc.' s Motion 
for Summary Judgment (Document No. 46); Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave 
to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply (Document No. 51); and 
Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect Party Designation 
(Document No. 58). Having considered the motions, submissions, and applicable 
law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs motion to correct the docket should be 
granted, Plaintiffs motion for leave should be denied, and that Experian Information 
Solutions, Inc.' s motion should be granted. 
I. BACKGROUND 
This is a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") case. Plaintiff Tremaine Manley 
contends that he discovered several inaccurate entries in Defendant Experian 
Information Solutions, Inc.' s ("Experian") credit file. Plaintiff alleges that, on April 
1 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 15
4, 2024, he notified Experian of the inaccuracies. Plaintiff further contends that 
Experian refused to investigate the alleged inaccuracies. 
Based on the foregoing, on April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court, 
pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims under the FCRA for: ( 1) 
"failure to reinvestigate[;]" (2) "failure to ensure accuracy[;]" (3) failure to provide 
file disclosures[;]" and ( 4) "willful and negligent violations[.]" 1 On February 27, 
2026, Experian moved for summary judgment.2 On March 17, 2026, Plaintiff 
responded in opposition.3 On March 25, 2026, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a 
corrected exhibit.4 On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff moved to correct the docket and 
remove an incorrect party designation. 5 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any 
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. 
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3. 
2 See Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, 
Document No. 46 at 1. 
3 See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information 
Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 1. 
4 See Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 1 . 
. 5 See Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect Party Designation, 
Document No. 58 at 1. 
2 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 15
Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the 
nonmovant. Coleman v. Haus. lndep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997). 
Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion and the 
elements of the causes of action upon which the nonrnovant will be unable to 
establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 
323 ( 1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific 
facts showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). "A 
dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable 
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., 
Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). 
But the nonmoving party's bare allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to 
create a material dispute of fact and defeat a motion for summary. If a reasonable 
jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party, then summary judgment is 
appropriate. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmovant's burden cannot 
be satisfied by "conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or 'only a 
scintilla of evidence."' Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 
1994)). Uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment, 
especially if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite 
3 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 15
scenario. Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, it 
is not the function of the Court to search the record on the nonmovant's behalf for 
evidence which may raise a fact issue. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1137 
n.30 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, "[a]lthough we consider the evidence and all 
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the 
nonmovant, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of 
its pleadings but must respond by setting forth specific facts indicating a genuine 
issue for trial." Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F .3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 2000). 
III. LAW & ANALYSIS 
The Court will consider the pending motions beginning with Plaintiffs 
Motion for Leave (Document No. 51 ), followed by Plaintiffs Motion to Correct the 
Docket (Document No. 58), and concluding with Defendant's Motion for Summary 
Judgment (Document No. 46). The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See 
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 
A. Plaintiff's Motion/or Leave (Document No. 51) 
Plaintiff moves for leave to "file the correct Exhibit C and a limited sur­
reply[. ]"6 In response, Experian contends that "Plaintiff attempts to supplement his 
Opposition by providing seven irrelevant pages that are clearly missing pages within 
6 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur­
Reply, Document No. 51 at 1. 
4 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 15
the document" and that a sur-reply is not necessary in this case.7 The Court will 
consider, in tum, Plaintiffs request for leave to amend and Plaintiffs request for 
leave to file a sur-reply. 
1. Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C 
The Court notes that Experian's motion for summary judgment was filed on 
February 27, 2026. Pursuant to the Southern District of Texas Local Rules, 
Plaintiffs response was due 21-days later on March 20, 2026. See S.D. Tex. Local 
R. 7.3. Plaintiffs response was timely filed on March 17, 2026. However, the Court 
further notes that Plaintiffs present motion for leave to amend his response was filed 
outside of the response deadline on March 25, 2026. The Court will nonetheless 
consider the merits of Pla1ntiff s motion. 
Here Plaintiff contends that "[t]he docketed filing appears to reflect a clerical 
attachment error in which Exhibit B was duplicated and attached in place of Exhibit 
C[.]"8 In response, Experian contends that "[t]he documents Plaintiff attempts to 
7 Experian Information Solutions, Inc, 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's 
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at 
2-3. 
8 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur­
Reply, Document No. 51 at 1. 
5 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 5 of 15
• supplement his Opposition as Exhibit C exclude the relevant document."9 The Court 
has reviewed, in detail, the record in this matter. The Court notes that Plaintiffs 
response identifies the intended Exhibit C as "Experian's Automated Consumer 
Dispute Verification records [.]"10 The Court notes that the Consumer Dispute 
Verification records ("CDV") which Plaintiff purports to identify as Exhibit C is 
already in the record as produced by Experian. 11 Furthermore, the Court notes that 
the proposed amended Exhibit C provided by Plaintiff in the present motion does 
not appear to be a CDV.12 Plaintiff does not explain what this document is or how it 
is relevant to the current matter. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs proposed 
amended Exhibit C is not relevant to this matter. Based on the foregoing, the Court 
determines that Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend should be denied. The Court 
declines to consider Plaintiffs proposed amended Exhibit C for the purpose of the 
9 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's 
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at 
2. 
10 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 3. 
11 See Declaration of Teresa Fievez in Support of Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 47, Exhibit 
A at 1 (Experian CDV). 
12 See Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Correct~d Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51, Exhibit A at 1-7 (Exhibit C). 
6 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 6 of 15
forthcoming motions. The Court will now consider Plaintiffs motion as it relates to 
leave to file a sur-reply. 
2. Leave to File a Sur-Reply 
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a sur-reply "addressing two matters raised .. 
m Defendant's Reply[.]" 13 In response, Experian contends that "[r]outine 
disagreements with the reply or a desire to recast the record are not sufficient" to 
justify a sur-reply .14 As Plaintiff notes in their motion, "[ u ]nder Southern District of 
Texas practice, a movant may file a reply, but further briefing such as a sur-reply is 
not automatic[.]"15 Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-reply addressing "(a) 
Defendant's contention that portions of Plaintiffs response are outside the pleadings 
or constitute new claims; and (b) Defendant's objection to Exhibit C based on the 
docketed attachment problem described above."16 Considering the long-standing 
precedent that a party is not automatically entitled to a sur-reply, and considering 
13 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2. 
14 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's 
Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply, Document No. 54 at 
3. 
15 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2. 
16 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2. 
7 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 7 of 15
that the present motion has already been fully briefed, the Court finds that a sur­
reply is not necessary in this matter. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs motion 
should be denied. The Court will now consider Plaintiffs motion to correct the 
docket. 
B. Plaintiff's Motion to Correct the Docket (Document No. 58) 
Plaintiff moves to correct the docket and remove an incorrect party 
designation. The Court notes that on April 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed their First 
Amended Complaint.17 However, the Court further notes that on April 8, 2026, 
Plaintiff filed a notice of erroneous filing contending that the ,First Amended 
Complaint was "not intended for this action[.]"18 Also on April 8, 2026, Plaintiff 
filed the present motion requesting that the Court "remove or correct any. incorrect 
reference to Navy Federal Credit Union as a defendant in this case[.]"19 Considering 
that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was not intended to be filed in this matter, the 
Court finds that it should be struck. As such, the Court hereby strikes Plaintiffs 
17 See Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Document No. 56 at 1. 
18 Plaintiff's Notice of Erroneous Filing, Document No. 57 at 1. 
19 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected Exhibit C and Limited 
Sur-Reply, Document No. 51 at 2. 
8 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 8 of 15
Amended Complaint and notes that Plaintiffs Original Complaint remains the 
operative complaint in this matter. 
Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the record in this matter and notes that 
Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union was not a defendant in this matter under 
Plaintiffs Original Complaint. Considering the Court's finding that Plaintiffs 
Original Complaint is the operative complaint in this matter, the Court finds that 
Navy Federal Credit Union is not a proper party to this action. As such, to the extent 
any claims are brought against Navy Federal Credit Union, they are dismissed. 
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs motion to correct the docket 
should be granted. The Court will now consider Experian's motion for summary 
judgment. 
C. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 46) 
Experian moves for summary judgment, contending that "[a]t best, Plaintiff 
offers completely unsupported allegations that are insufficient to create a genuine 
issue of fact."20 In response, Plaintiff contends that "Experian's Motion is premised 
on an artificially narrow characterization of Plaintiffs claims[.]"21 
20 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document 
No. 46 at 9-10. 
21 Plaintiff's Response in Oppositi9n to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 5. 
9 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 9 of 15
As a preliminary matter, a party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden 
of establishing standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 555 (1992) 
(holding that a party must establish "that they have suffered an injury in fact, i.e., a 
concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected 
interest."). To establish standing, a plaintiff "must have ( 1) suffered an injury in fact, 
(2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is 
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 
U.S. 330, 338 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. 555 at 560)). 
Here, Experian contends that "Plaintiff did not suffer the concrete and 
particularized injury necessary to establish Article III standing."22 In response, 
Plaintiff contends that "genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding action 
damages[.]"23 Plaintiffs complaint alleges that "[a]s a direct and proximate result of 
Experian' s willful and negligent violations of the FCRA, Plaintiff has suffered 
significant harm. He has been denied credit opportunities ... he has experienced 
increased insurance premiums; and he has endured humiliation[.] Moreover, 
Plaintiff operates a small business and was denied a line of credit[.]"24 Based on the 
22 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document 
No. 46 at 24. 
23 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 14. 
24 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2-3. 
10 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 10 of 15
Court's own independent review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court notes that 
Plaintiff fails to provide any supporting evidence with respect to his alleged 
damages. 
Plaintiff contends that actual damages are present in this matter, arguing, in 
relevant part, that: (1) "Plaintiffs February 27, 2026 disclosure reflects a FICO 
Score 8 of 558, multiple charged-off accounts reporting present-tense 'Past Due' 
balances[;]" (2) "[e]ach hard inquiry reflects that Plaintiffs consumer report was 
furnished to a third-party lender[;]" and that (3) "because he was unable to obtain 
regular financing, he entered a substantially more expensive vehicle transaction with 
burdensome terms[.]"25Experian contends that "[n]one of the documents that 
Plaintiff has provided in any of his motions demonstrate a causal link between the 
outcomes of his reinvestigations and the alleged damages."26 Furthermore, Experian 
contends that "[t]he results of Plaintiff having a low credit score because of accurate 
reporting are different from plausible damages based on some alleged violation of 
Experian. "27 The Court has conducted a thorough review of the support provided by 
25 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 14-15. 
26 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion for 
Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 9. 
27 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion for 
Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 9. 
11 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 11 of 15
Plaintiff in support of his damages. The Court's review reveals that none of 
Plaintiffs supporting evidence provide any causal link between any alleged 
negligence by Experian and any alleged damages. 
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff is contending that the charged-off 
accounts reporting as past due caused his alleged damages, the Court rejects such 
contention as an improper understanding of the law. 28 To the extent that Plaintiff is 
contending that the reported bankruptcies caused his alleged damages, the Court 
notes that Plaintiff has provided no evidence that bankruptcies were inaccurately 
reported.29 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show 
that any alleged injuries or damages are fairly traceable to Experian. 
With respect to Plaintiffs alleged emotional damages, Experian contends that 
"Plaintiff did not suffer the concrete and particularized injury necessary to establish 
28 See Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Reply in Support of Motion 
for Summary Judgment, Document No. 49 at 3 ("Plaintiff argues that because multiple 
negative trade lines in his credit report are labeled 'Account charged off while also being 
labeled as 'Past Due' and that his credit report could mislead a reasonable creditor. 
Plaintiffs theory is not supported by law or fact.") (citation omitted) (relying on Davidson 
v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 4:24-cv-1172-P, 2025 WL 2632407, at *19 (N.D. Tex. 
Aug. 14, 2025); Thomason v. World Finance, No. 1 :23-cv-00109-ada, 2023 WL 4375499, 
at *8 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2023)). 
29 See Declaration of Teresa Fievez in Support of Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 47, Exhibit 
1 (Bankruptcies Reported) (noting "BK 7 Dismissed"). 
12 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 12 of 15
Article III standing."30 Experian relies on binding Fifth Circuit precedent which 
holds that a "plaintiff seeking emotional distress damages is required to present 
'evidence of a genuine injury ... ' and to demonstrate 'a degree of specificity[.] "'31 
Wagner v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 520 F. App'x 295, 298 (5th Cir. 2013) (per 
. curiam) ( citation omitted). In response, Plaintiff contends that Experian's "refusal to 
conduct a reinvestigation ... caused stress, anxiety, frustration, embarrassment, 
sleep disruption, and financial harm."32 A review of the record in this matter reveals 
that Plaintiffs only support for their emotional damages is their own declaration 
stating nothing more than what is already contained in Plaintiffs response.33 Based 
on the foregoing, and given the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance that emotional 
damages must be accompanied by evidence of a genuine injury and be pied with a 
degree of specificity, the Court finds that Plaintiffs alleged emotional damages are 
nothing more than speculative. As such, the Court finds that the alleged emotional 
30 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document 
No. 46 at 24. 
31 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document 
No. 46 at 24. 
32 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, 
Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48 at 15. 
33 See Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Experian Information 
Solutions, Inc. 's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 48, Exhibit G at 2 (Manley 
Declaration) ("Experian's refusal to conduct a reinvestigation, and the continued reporting 
of the disputed items, caused me significant stress, frustration, anxiety, [ and] 
embarrassment[.]"). 
13 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 13 of 15
damages do not aid in Plaintiffs attempt to show a particularized injury required for 
Article III standing. 
Given the Court's finding that Plaintiff has failed to show a particularized 
injury with respect to his emotional damages and failed to show traceability to 
Experian with "respect to his financial damages, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 
failed to establish Article III standing. Based on the foregoing, and the Supreme 
Court's clear guidance that it is the plaintiffs burden to show that they have 
standing, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. Thus, the Court 
finds that Experian's motion to dismiss should be granted.34 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby 
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Opposed Motion for Leave to File Corrected 
Exhibit C and Limited Sur-Reply (Document No. 51) is DENIED. The Court further 
ORDERS that Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Docket and Remove Incorrect 
Party Designation (Document No. 58) is GRANTED, The Court further 
ORDERS that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Document No. 56) is 
hereby STRUCK. The Court further 
34 Given the Court's finding that Plaintiff lacks standing, the Court declines to 
consider Experian' s remaining arguments related to the merits of each of Plaintiffs 
potential claims. 
14 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 14 of 15
ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Navy Federal Credit 
• Union, to the extent Plaintiff brings any, are hereby DISMISSED. The Court further 
ORDERS that Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary 
Judgment (Document No. 46) is GRANTED. The Court further 
ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Experian Information 
Solutions, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED. The Court further 
ORDERS that all pending motions in this matter are hereby DENIED AS 
MOOT. 
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this __i__bday of June, 2026. 
DA YID HITTNER 
United States District Judge 
15 
Case 4:25-cv-01810     Document 64     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 15 of 15

Passage view · GavelSight