Entities	Texas (8)
Laws	Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (16)
Topics and Issues	Medical debt (38) Preemption (11)

In September 2019, CDIA filed suit against the State of Texas challenging the validity of a law that changes the way medical debt is reported to credit bureaus. The Texas law is preempted by the FCRA. In October, the state filed its motion to dismiss, which was followed by CDIA’s response to that motion, and the state’s reply to CDIA’s response.

CDIA challenged S.B. 1037 (1999), a bill amending the Texas Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Texas FCRA”) to add Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 20.05(a)(5), which attempts to prohibit a CRA from preparing a consumer report containing information related to a medical collection account, specifically:

… [a] collection account with a medical industry code, if the consumer was covered by a health benefit plan at the time of the event giving rise to the collection and the collection is for an outstanding balance, after copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance, owed to an emergency care provider or a facility-based provider for an out-of-network  benefit claim…

Relevant documents:

• CDIA’s complaint (9/9/2019)
• Texas’ motion to dismiss (10/2/2019)
• CDIA’s response to Texas’ motion to dismiss (10/16/2019)
• Texas’ reply in support of its motion to dismiss (10/23/2019)
• U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower’s Report and Recommendations to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pittman (7/22/2020)
• CDIA’s objections to Magistrate Judge Hightower’s Report and Recommendations (8/5/2020)
• CDIA’s motion to file a first amended complaint, including CDIA’s first amended complaint (Ex. A) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Ex. B.) (8/5/2020)
• Texas’ response in opposition to CDIA’s objections to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (8/20/2020)
• Texas’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations (9/10/2020)
• Texas’ Sur-Reply to CDIA’s objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations.  This sur-reply was filed “to address two key problems with CDIA’s reply in support of its objections to the [Magistrate’s] report and recommendation: sovereign immunity and preemption.” (9/10/2020)
• The U.S. District Court’s rejection of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower’s Report and Recommendations, and his order allowing CDIA to file a first amended complaint (11/17/2020)
• CDIA’s first amended complaint (11/17/2020)
• Texas’ motion to dismiss CDIA’s first amended complaint (1/4/2021)
• CDIA’s response to Texas’ motion to dismiss CDIA’s first amended complaint (2/2/2021)
• Texas’ reply to CDIA’s response in support of Texas’ motion to dismiss CDIA’s first amended complaint (2/23/2021)
• The U.S. District Court judge’s denial of Texas’ motion to dismiss (9/28/2021).
• Texas’ notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit of the District Court’s denial of the state’s motion to dismiss (10/28/21).
• Texas’ brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit over the District Court’s denial of the state’s motion to dismiss (12/22/21).
• CDIA’s brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
• Texas’ reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held oral argument for October 3, 2022, before Judges James E. Graves, Jr. (Obama, 2011), Don Willett (Trump, 2018), and Kurt D. Engelhardt (Trump, 2018). Oral argument will be available online on the Court’s website and on the Court’s YouTube channel. Also online is the calendar of cases being heard that morning, including CDIA v. Texas.
• Just a few days before the oral argument, the Court requested that both parties file simultaneous supplemental letter briefs by September 30, 2022. The Court has asked the parties to respond to five questions:

(1) Whether “necessary operational changes” and the possibility of an “enforcement action from the Attorney General” pose distinct risks of harm that require individual analysis for justiciability purposes? (2) Whether the relief that Appellee has requested would prevent private consumers from asserting any rights under section 20.08(a) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code? (3) Whether relief that Appellee has requested would redress any injury in fact that arises from “necessary operational changes.” (4) Whether the possibility of an “enforcement action from the Attorney General” is an independent injury in fact? (5) Whether the possibility of an “enforcement action from the Attorney General” is an independent hardship for ripeness purposes?

• In response to the 5th Circuit’s request that both parties file simultaneous supplemental letter briefs, CDIA filed its supplemental letter brief, and Texas filed its supplemental letter brief.
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s denial of Texas’ motion to dismiss (July 2023).
• On October 13, 2023, Texas filed its answer to CDIA’s first amended complaint.
• Upcoming schedule
  • The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before February 2, 2024.
  • All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before May 31, 2024. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the motion. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties not later than 7 days after the service of the response.