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

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