DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY PAGE 1 

20-000019-510

DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON 

PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY 

 COMES NOW Defendant Colonial Savings, F.A. (“Colonial” or “Defendant”), and files 

this its Brief on Proportionate responsibility, and shows: 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Ann Marie Attridge (“Plaintiff”) brings to trial a single cause of action, namely, 

that Colonial negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). [ECF No. 14, pp.6-

7]. 

Plaintiff alleges that Colonial, as a “furnisher” of credit reporting information under the 

FCRA, provided incorrect information to settling Defendant TransUnion, LLC (“TransUnion”), 

which as a Credit Reporting Agency under the FCRA reported it without allegedly having 

performed a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of this information. [ECF No. 14, pp.8-

9]. 

For damages against Colonial, she seeks to recover money for “damages to her 

reputation, stress, fear, worry, distress, frustration humiliation, and embarrassment.” [ECF No. 

14, p.14, ¶39]. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

 

ANN MARIE ATTRIDGE, § 

§ 

§ 

 Plaintiffs, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00205-OLG 

§ 

COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A. and 

TRANSUNION, LLC, 

§

§ 

§ 

 Defendant. § 

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ July 29, 2022 NM

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 84 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 5
DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY PAGE 2 

20-000019-510

In her Complaint, Plaintiff sought the same exact damages from TransUnion for the same 

exact alleged injury. [ECF No. 14, p.9, ¶51]. This makes sense because it is only the actual 

credit reporting done by TransUnion the supposedly caused Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Colonial 

allegedly provided the incorrect information to TransUnion, and TransUnion then allegedly 

reported it. Plaintiff does not allege separate and distinct injuries caused separately by Colonial 

and TransUnion. 

Plaintiff settled with TransUnion. Clearly, these settlement funds were paid to 

compensate Plaintiff for the alleged injuries she suffered. 

Under Texas’ proportionate responsibility structure, TransUnion would be included in the 

main liability question for the jury. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 33.003(a)(3). Further, the 

amount of the settlement would be offset from whatever total compensation award the jury might 

give. Id. § 33.012(b). These provisions exist to prevent double-dipping by the Plaintiff. 

Different defendants should not be required to both pay a Plaintiff for the same injury. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORTIES 

The FCRA, itself, is silent on whether comparative fault provisions should apply. See

FCRA. 

Colonial has not found any authorities on point by another federal court in the Fifth 

Circuit. The sole Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of joint liability under the FCRA comes 

from the Ninth Circuit. Reynolds v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 435 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 

2006) (determining that joint and several liability under the FCRA furthers the statute's consumer 

protection goals) (overruled on other grounds by Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 

(2007). In Reynolds, a defendant argued that only one party could be sued for a violation of the 

FCRA. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, reasoning that multiple parties can play a role in a plaintiff’s 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 84 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 5
DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY PAGE 3 

20-000019-510

suffering an injury due to wrongful credit reporting and therefore tort principles of joint and 

several liability apply. While the Ninth Circuit in Reynolds did not go and discuss settlement 

credits or proportionate responsibility after that, it would necessarily follow that the plaintiff 

should not be permitted to recover the same damages from multiple parties. 

United States District Judge Lanny King of the Western District of Kentucky, in an Order 

issued just two months ago, persuasively reasons that the federal courts have consistently applied 

the one satisfaction rule in federal claims to prevent a plaintiff from double or triple recovering 

damages for the same injury. Wellemeyer v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00814-DJH-LLK, 

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92890 *9-15 (W.D. Ky. May 24, 2022). According to Judge King, the 

one satisfaction rule has historically been applied in tort cases, in the interest of justice, to allow 

a plaintiff only one recovery for damages sustained from tortious conduct and that different 

defendants should not be required to pay that same amount multiple times. Id. Further, Judge 

King noted that federal courts have treated FCRA claims for what they are, tort claims, and as 

such have applied tort principles to them. Among the cases cited by Judge King come from the 

United States Supreme Court, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016), which is an 

FCRA case that the Supreme Court treated as a tort case. In Spokeo, the plaintiff argued that, as 

the FCRA is supposedly a statute meant to punish Furnishers and Credit Reporting Agencies, he 

did not need to suffer any actual harm to have standing to bring a claim under the FCRA. The 

Supreme Court disagreed. It applied principles of tort law to hold that a mere violation of the 

FCRA by a defendant does not allow the plaintiff to bring suit—the plaintiff must still have 

suffered an injury to have standing to bring the claim. 

This same reasoning of Judge King, from within the 6

th Circuit, has applied by several 

Federal District Court Judges (not just in the 11th Circuit, as Plaintiff suggests) to reach the 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 84 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 5
DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY PAGE 4 

20-000019-510

conclusion that comparative fault principles apply in FCRA cases to prevent double recoveries 

by the plaintiff. See Robinson v. Nat'l Credit Sys., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-386, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 65891, *9 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018) (holding default of “comparative fault” was properly 

pled because plaintiff’s FCRA claim sounded in tort as claim for negligence); Williams v. LVNV 

Funding, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-2219-KOB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54845, (N.D. Ala. Apr. 11, 

2017) (holding one satisfaction rule applies in FCRA cases); Bruno v. Equifax Information 

Servs., Inc., No. CV 2:17-0327 WBS EFB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102467, *7 (E.D. Cal. June 

30, 2017) (holding comparative fault applies in FCRA cases); Deaton v. Chevy Chase Bank, No. 

01-00352 SPK/BMK, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118279 *17 (D. Haw. 2006) (holding contributory 

negligence applies in FCRA cases). 

The Courts that have failed to apply comparative fault in FCRA cases take a too-narrow 

view of the statute. They simply reason that, because the FCRA does not specifically provide for 

it, then it does not exist. This is why Judge King’s opinion is better-reasoned. He looks at the 

history of federal courts applying the one satisfaction rule in federal claim cases that are based in 

principles of tort. The one satisfaction rule is meant to prevent double dipping. The FCRA 

allows a plaintiff to recover losses for “actual damages” that are suffered, not to recover those 

same damages multiple times from different parties. Consider, for instance, if Experian and 

Equifax had also been sued in this case for the same credit reporting. All three of the Credit 

Reporting Agencies would be making the same report and all causing the same injury. Should 

Plaintiff be allowed to recover her alleged damages times four? 

With respect to the settlement credit, Colonial does not intend to bring evidence of the 

settlement agreement before the jury. This credit would simply be provided by the Court in the 

event that damages may be awarded to Plaintiff in the verdict. 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 84 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 5
DEFENDANT COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A.’S BRIEF ON PROPORTIONATE RESPONSIBILITY PAGE 5 

20-000019-510

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Colonial prays that its request for a charge 

of proportionate responsibility be given and that a settlement credit also be provided in the event 

of a jury verdict in Plaintiff’s favor. Colonial seeks all other relief to which it may be entitled. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett 

 MARK D. CRONENWETT

 Attorney in Charge 

 Texas Bar No. 00787303 

mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com 

MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC 

14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 

Dallas, Texas 75254 

(214) 635-2650 

(214) 635-2686 (Fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

COLONIAL SAVINGS, FA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 29, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

via ECF notification on the following counsel of record: 

William M. Clanton 

Law Office of Bill Clanton, PC 

926 Chulie Drive 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

bill@clantonlawoffice.com

 /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett 

MARK D. CRONENWETT 

Case 5:20-cv-00205-OLG Document 84 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 5