Phap Anh Le v. Midland Credit Management Inc. - Multiple Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 14, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Phap Anh Le v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Encore Capital Group, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00870

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

§
PHAP ANH LE,
§
Plaintiff, §
§ CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00870-ADA-SH
v. §
§
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, §
INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP §
INC., §
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Susan Hightower (Dkt. 34) regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, filed July 16, 2025 (Dkt. 24), and the associated response and reply briefs. The report
and recommendation was filed on November 10, 2025. Judge Hightower recommended that the
District Court GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc.’s
Opposed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24). Specifically, the report recommends that the District Court
GRANT the motion and DISMISS without prejudice Counts Two in part (15 U.S.C. §
1692g(b)), Three (15 U.S.C. § 1692f), Four in part (15 U.S.C. § 1681n), Five (FCRA), Six
(negligence), Seven (defamation), Eight (RICO), Ten (Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act),
Eleven (Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act), Twelve (invasion of privacy), and
Thirteen (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act). The report further recommends that the District Court DENY the motion in all
other respects. This Court hereby adopts Judge Hightower’s recommendations.
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general
objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by
Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Plaintiff Le filed objections on November 24, 2025 (Dkt. 37). The Court has conducted de
novo review of the Report and Recommendation, the objections to the report and recommendation,
and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate
Judge’s findings and recommendations should be adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Hightower (Dkt. 34) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Counts

Two in part (15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)), Three (15 U.S.C. § 1692f), Four in part (15 U.S.C. § 1681n),
Five (FCRA), Six (negligence), Seven (defamation), Eight (RICO), Ten (Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act), Eleven (Texas Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act), Twelve (invasion
of privacy), and Thirteen (California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act) are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24) is DENIED in all other respects.
The clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
SIGNED this 14" day of January, 2026.

(Dror
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG