Damond v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GLENN DAMOND CIVIL ACTION
v. NO: 25-1570
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SECTION: C (2)
SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC and TransUnion LLC’s Joint
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (R. Doc. 50), filed on February
3, 2026, is before the court.1 The motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Glenn Damond, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, originally
filed suit on July 30, 2025, asserting violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) and Lanham Act as well as state law claims, seeking billions of dollars in
damages and injunctive relief.2 Magistrate Judge Currault recommended Damond’s
FCRA claims be dismissed, without prejudice, with leave to amend; and his Lanham
Act claims be dismissed, with prejudice.3 District Judge Long adopted Magistrate
Judge Currault’s recommendation and gave Damond twenty-one days to file an
1 The third defendant named in the First Amended Complaint, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., joined
in and adopted by reference all factual and legal arguments contained in the motion, memorandum in
support, and all exhibits thereto (R. Doc. 55).
2 R. Doc. 1.
3 R. Doc. 44.
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 1 of 8

2
amended complaint.4 Damond timely filed his First Amended Complaint asserting
claims under the FCRA against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., TransUnion
LLC, and Equifax Information Services LLC.5
In his amended complaint, Damond asserts that from 2014 to 2024 he was a
victim of “continuous, repeated, and severe inaccurate credit reporting” by the credit
reporting agencies.6 He asserts he disputed the inaccuracies every year during this
nine-year period, but the agencies “repeatedly returned the same false information
as ‘verified’”.7 He states the agencies’ failure to correct the inaccuracies caused him
to suffer tremendous financial losses.8
Damond provides examples of the alleged inaccurate agency reporting,
including wrong names, addresses, social security numbers, and employment
history.9 He lists instances of the agencies reporting different numbers for his open
accounts, closed accounts, derogatory accounts, account balances, and dates of last
activity.10 And he notes he asked for FCRA verification for several of his accounts.11
Damond asserts the following FCRA claims: (1) willful violations under §
1681n; (2) negligent violations under § 1681o; (3) failure to follow reasonable
4 R. Doc. 48.
5 R. Doc. 49.
6 R. Doc. 49 at 2.
7 Id. at 3.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 3–4.
11 Id. at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 2 of 8

3
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information reported under §
1681e(b); (4) failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s alleged
disputes under § 1681i(a); (5) failure to provide proper file disclosure under § 1681g;
(6) reporting obsolete and re-aged information under § 1681c; (7) failure to verify
accounts before reporting them under §§ 609(a)(1)(A) and 1681i(a); (8) damages;
and (9) punitive damages under § 1681n(a)(2).12
II. ANALYSIS
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations.
A complaint, or any part of it, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted if plaintiff fails to make factual allegations entitling him
to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier v.
Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007).
To survive, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Id. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief is a context-specific task requiring the application of judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
12 Id. at 12–23.
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 3 of 8

4
While detailed factual allegations are not required, a complaint must offer
more than labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a
cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The complaint is construed in the light
most favorable to plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and
drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.” Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378
F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). However, the court will not accept
“conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions” as
true. Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v.
IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). If factual allegations are
insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, the claim should be
dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
While a pro se litigant’s pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
“a pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.” Wells v. Gautreaux, 771 F. Supp. 3d 842, 847 (M.D. La. 2025)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts are “not required to search
for or try to create causes of actions or find material issues of fact for pro se
plaintiffs.” Id. (citation omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Because this plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
grants the court the ability to “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that the action is frivolous.”
A. The FCRA
The FCRA “regulates the consumer reporting agencies that compile and
disseminate personal information about consumers,” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
594 U.S. 413, 418 (2021). The law aims “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting,
promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco
Insurance Company of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007). “Consumer
reporting agencies … have an obligation under the [FCRA] to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the
individual about whom the report relates.” Johnson v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., No. 26-cv-666, 2026 WL 2349507, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2026)
(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)) (other citation omitted). The agencies also must
“conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information
is inaccurate.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A)). “A consumer can bring a
civil action against a credit reporting agency for negligent or willful violations of its
statutory obligations [under the FCRA].” Reyes v. Equifax Information Services,
L.L.C., 140 F.4th 279, 285 (5th Cir. 2025) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n–1681o).
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Here, Damond alleges reporting agency violations of Sections 1681i and
1681e(b) of the FCRA.
B. Damond’s Amended Complaint is Insufficient
Any claims for inability to obtain business loans and investment are legally
barred. See Bacharach v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 827 F.3d 432, 434–35 (5th Cir.
2016) (“Numerous courts have concluded that the FCRA does not cover reports used
or expected to be used only in connection with commercial business transactions.”)
(citations omitted); see also Ippolito v. WNS, Inc., 864 F.2d 440, 452 (7th Cir. 1988)
(“In enacting the FCRA, Congress sought to regulate the dissemination of
information used for consumer purposes, not business purposes.”); Matthews v.
Worthen Bank & Trust Co., 741 F.2d 217, 219 (8th Cir. 1984) (noting that the
“[FCRA] was intended to apply only to reports which relate to the consumer’s
eligibility for personal credit or other commercial benefits as a consumer, and not to
the consumer’s business transactions”) (citation omitted). Damond primarily
complains of lost business opportunities. Such claims are not within the scope of
the FCRA and, thus, not actionable. See Bacharach, 827 F.3d at 435.13
Damond refers to reporting agency actions that deprived him of “credit”,
“personal loans”, “car loans”, and “housing”.14 To the extent these allegations reflect
13 Because Damond’s grievances concern solely business affairs and are thus not actionable, the court need
not analyze whether his allegations satisfy the elements of his various FCRA claims.
14 Id. at 3–5, 9–11.
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 6 of 8

7
consumer claims, they are conclusory. They do not detail how any agency violation
(summarily pled as “conflicting names, conflicting Social Security numbers,
conflicting addresses, false employers, inaccurate, account balances, inconsistent
account histories, mixed-file data, re-aged derogatory accounts, and unverified
tradelines”) prevented him from obtaining consumer financing. Without those
factual details, the allegations are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.
Damond contends he competed for business contracts with professional
athletes, high-profile movie theater chains such as AMC Theaters, and sound
recording studios. He states he produced hundreds of original movie scripts,
television series, soundtrack songs, and books, all while serving a fifteen-year prison
term. He claims he started multiple entertainment businesses, and certifies that
solely because of reporting agency actions, these opportunities failed, and he lost
billions in revenue. He states his lost profits rivaled those earned by entire film
franchises such as DC Studios and Marvel Studios.
These fantastical allegations are far beyond mere improbability. They are
facially implausible. See Bruce v. BP P.L.C., No. 18-cv-2626, 2024 WL 1156616, at
*6 (E.D. La. March 18, 2024). (“In this case Plaintiff’s fantastical allegations are
far beyond mere improbability. While there are no little green men or time machines
in Plaintiff’s complaint, it is fantastic enough to be ‘halted at the starting gate by the
district court.’”) (citation omitted). Consequently, Damond’s complaint is
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 7 of 8

8
dismissed. The court will permit Damond a last chance to amend his complaint to
allege a plausible consumer claim under the FCRA.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC and
TransUnion LLC’s Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (R. Doc.
50) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is granted LEAVE TO AMEND
his complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this order. If no amendment is
filed, the captioned matter will be dismissed in its entirety.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of September 2026
__________________________________
WILLIAM J. CRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01570-WJC-DPC Document 65 Filed 09/23/26 Page 8 of 8