Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC

E.D. Texas

Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC

DecidedJanuary 23, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-00565

StatusUnknown

This text of Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC (Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC, (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 4:25-cv-00565 Heather Wing, Plaintiff, V. TransUnion LLC, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Doc. 1 at 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 4. Before discovery commenced, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on four claims, two of which she pleaded in her complaint and two of which she did not. Docs. 11, 29 at 1-2. Defendant responded by filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) urging denial of plaintiff’s motion as premature and asking for fees and costs. Doc. 13. Plaintiff failed to file a response. The magistrate judge subsequently issued a report recom- mending that plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice, that defendant’s motion be granted insofar as it seeks denial of plain- tiff’s motion as premature, and that defendant’s request for fees and costs be denied. Doc. 29 at 6. No party filed written objec- tions. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s motion for partial sum- mary judgment (Doc. 11) is denied without prejudice as to its re- filing once adequate time for discovery has passed. See Barney Holland Oil Co. v. FleetCor Techs., Inc., 275 F. App’x 351, 354 (5th

-l-

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Generally, summary judgment may be granted only after an ‘adequate time for discov- ery.’” (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))). Defendant’s motion (Doc. 13) is granted to the extent that it seeks denial of plaintiff’s motion as premature, but denied as to its re- quest for fees and costs. So ordered by the court on January 23, 2026.

j! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 4:25-cv-00565 Heather Wing, Plaintiff, V. TransUnion LLC, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Doc. 1 at 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 4. Before discovery commenced, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on four claims, two of which she pleaded in her complaint and two of which she did not. Docs. 11, 29 at 1-2. Defendant responded by filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) urging denial of plaintiff’s motion as premature and asking for fees and costs. Doc. 13. Plaintiff failed to file a response. The magistrate judge subsequently issued a report recom- mending that plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice, that defendant’s motion be granted insofar as it seeks denial of plain- tiff’s motion as premature, and that defendant’s request for fees and costs be denied. Doc. 29 at 6. No party filed written objec- tions. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis- fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find- ings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s motion for partial sum- mary judgment (Doc. 11) is denied without prejudice as to its re- filing once adequate time for discovery has passed. See Barney Holland Oil Co. v. FleetCor Techs., Inc., 275 F. App’x 351, 354 (5th

-l-

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“Generally, summary judgment may be granted only after an ‘adequate time for discov- ery.’” (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))). Defendant’s motion (Doc. 13) is granted to the extent that it seeks denial of plaintiff’s motion as premature, but denied as to its re- quest for fees and costs. So ordered by the court on January 23, 2026.

j! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heather Wing v. TransUnion LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heather-wing-v-transunion-llc-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack