In Rodriguez v. Trans Union Llc & Santander Cosumer United States, No. 1:19-CV-379-LY, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186016 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019), Magistrate Judge Yeakel found no inaccuracy in how a closed automobile account was being reported. The Plaintiff claimed that her 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 alleged that the Santander Account is closed and that she no longer has any obligation to make monthly payments on it. The Court rejected her argument.

Plaintiff argues that her credit report is inaccurate because it states that the “Terms” of her contract with Santander required “$345 per month, paid Monthly for 87 months.” Exh. A-2 to Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff argues that this is inaccurate because it should state under the Terms section that “the monthly payment amount is $0.” Dkt. No. 1 at ¶10. However, Plaintiff’s credit report plainly states that the Santander Account was “closed” on January 31, 2013, and that the Account was “Charged Off,” “Paid in Full,” and had a “$0” balance. Exh. A-2 to Dkt. No. 9. The Court finds that Trans Union’s credit report is unequivocally clear that the Santander Account is closed and Plaintiff no longer owes any money on it, and the credit report is not misleading. The fact that the credit report shows that the historical payment terms of her contract required monthly payments of $345 is not inaccurate or misleading in any way. Other District Courts presented with identical facts have come to the same conclusion. In Meeks v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 1856411, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1856412 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2019), the plaintiff made the same arguments as Plaintiff, namely “that the Errant Trade Line should be reported by Santander with a scheduled monthly amount of $0.” The district court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the credit report was inaccurate, reasoning as follows: The Court agrees with Trans Union that, when the Santander account is viewed as a whole, it is undeniable that there exists no ongoing obligation for payment. The Santander account is clearly reported as closed, charged-off, purchased by another lender, and with a $0 balance. The mere presence of historical monthly payment terms neither causes [*9] confusion nor creates an inaccuracy. *** [I]t is not plausible that the existence on the credit disclosure of plaintiff’s former monthly payment obligation could materially mislead a prospective lender about the nature of his current obligations. Id. at 6-7; see also, e.g., Gibson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 4731957, at *4 (M.D. Ga. July 2, 2019) (granting motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under §1681e(b) where plaintiff’s account did not have a balance listed on the credit report and the account was marked closed); Her, LLC, 2019 WL 4295280, at *5 (holding that plaintiff failed to allege a prima facie claim under §1681e(b) as a matter of law where the account was reported accurately, since it clearly indicated the account was closed, paid in full, was a charge-off, and had a $0 balance). Plaintiff relies on Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 179570 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2019), in support of her claim that the credit report is inaccurate. In Jackson, the court found that the plaintiff alleged a plausible claim for relief under § 1681e(b) where the credit report still showed a balance on the account despite being charged off. Id. at *4. However, a few months after Jackson was issued, the Middle District of Georgia distinguished its ruling from cases presenting facts identical to those here: This Court previously denied a motion to dismiss on a markedly similar case, but it can be distinguished. In Jackson, the plaintiff alleged an erroneous monthly payment amount on the tradeline of a charged off account. The plaintiff’s complaint survived a motion to dismiss, but for a reason that is not present here. In Jackson, “the Trans Union credit disclosure listed a remaining balance of $7,411 despite the fact that the debt was charged off.” This Court found that “it is plausible that the monthly payment trade line could materially mislead a prospective lender about the nature of Plaintiff’s obligation to make payments on this account particularly when the account continues to list a balance despite being charged off.” Here, Plaintiff’s account does not have a balance listed on Trans Union’s reporting. The accounts are all clearly labeled “CLOSED” and have a listed balance of $0. Thus, it is not plausible that Defendant Trade Union’s tradelines would materially mislead a prospective lender about Plaintiff’s current obligations. Gibson, 2019 WL 4731957, at *4. Like in Gibson and Meeks, the credit report here clearly states that the Santander Account was closed and had a $0 balance. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reliance on Jackson is misplaced. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible claim for relief under § 1681e(b) because she has failed to show that the credit report was inaccurate. Plaintiff’s subjective belief that her credit report was inaccurate is insufficient to state a claim under § 1681e(b). Meeks, 2019 WL 1856411 at *7.