Amy E. Tabor

Amy E. Tabor likes nothing better than getting fair compensation for people who have been wronged and holding abusive companies responsible for their actions. She has represented consumers and small businesses against some of the largest companies and law firms in the United States. She has experience in complex cases, including class actions, commercial litigation, and antitrust matters involving the automotive, technology, energy, construction, and airline industries. She also has extensive experience in Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) matters. She has appeared for clients in state and federal court in both Texas and California, before arbitral tribunals, and at the Texas Court of Appeals. Before joining Caddell & Chapman, Ms. Tabor worked at the international law firm of Baker Botts, L.L.P.

Ms. Tabor has a strong commitment to client service. She listens carefully to her clients and makes it a top priority to promptly return all calls and emails from clients.

Ms. Tabor graduated, with high honors, from the University of Texas School of Law in 2003, where she was a member of the Texas Law Review and the Order of the Coif. She earned her B.A. from Brown University, magna cum laude, in 1995 and received a Mellon Fellowship in the Humanities to study history at the University of California at Berkeley from 1995-1999.

In pro bono matters, Ms. Tabor has represented clients in immigration asylum proceedings. She is an active member of the Houston Bar Association, where she served as Co-Chair of the Communities in Schools Legal Internship Committee and as Chair of the Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section.

Representative Cases

FCRA Class Action: Represented plaintiffs in approval and appeal of a $42 million nationwide settlement on behalf of consumers whose credit reports inaccurately reflected that they owed pre-bankruptcy debts. Under a related injunctive relief settlement, the three major nationwide Credit Reporting Agencies agreed to revise their procedures for reporting pre-bankrupcy debt, a change that the district court praised as “groundbreaking.” The district court approved the settlement on April 6, 2018, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed approval of the settlement in Radcliffe v. Hernandez, 794 F. App’x 605 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 207 L. Ed. 2d 171 (June 8, 2020). Under the settlement, class members who show evidence of actual damages will receive awards ranging from $150-$750, while other claimants will receive lesser payments.

FCRA Class Action: Represented plaintiffs in appeal of nationwide settlement on behalf of a class of an estimated 200 million consumers against LexisNexis. Plaintiffs alleged that LexisNexis’s Accurint for Collections database violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by selling private information bearing on creditworthiness without affording FCRA protections. Under the settlement, LexisNexis divided the Accurint for Collections database into two newly developed products. One product, “Collections Decisioning,” will be treated as falling within FCRA’s “consumer report” definition, entitling consumers to full FCRA protections, including the right to a free copy of their report, the right to dispute and correct errors in the database, and the right to sue if LexisNexis fails to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information. The other product, “Contact & Locate,” which does not fall within the ambit of the FCRA, will nonetheless provide consumers with FCRA-like rights, such as the right to obtain a free copy of their Contact & Locate reports once per year and the right to submit clarifying information for phone numbers and addresses provided in Contact & Locate reports. In addition, consumers who contacted LexisNexis to request a copy or dispute the accuracy of their Accurint reports will receive payments of approximately $300, without any requirement to file a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of the Settlement in Berry v. Schulman, 807 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Schulman v. LexisNexis Risk & Info. Analytics Grp., Inc. (U.S. Oct. 3, 2016).

TCPA Class Action: Represented plaintiff and nationwide class of approximately 12 million consumers in suit alleging that Sirius XM illegally used autodialers to make telemarketing calls to cellular phones. On December 22, 2016, Judge Arenda Wright Allen of the Eastern District of Virginia finally approved a settlement on behalf of persons who received satellite radio programming on a promotional basis from Sirius XM and received telephone calls made by or on behalf of Sirius XM to their wireless numbers, and who never became paying subscribers. The settlement offers class members three months of free access to Sirius XM’s satellite radio service or the option to participate in a $35 million common fund, as well as injunctive relief against the challenged calling practices.

Complex Nationwide Antitrust Litigation: Represented major natural gas marketer and electricity generator in litigation related to the California Energy Crisis in California and multiple other states. Antitrust and commodities manipulation claims accused natural gas marketers of manipulating prices by false price reporting to industry publications and “wash trades.” State-law claims in Nevada and Tennessee were dismissed on federal preemption grounds. Cases removed to federal court were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the District of Nevada, where the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Ms. Tabor’s client. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Nev. 2007). The Supreme Courts of Nevada and Tennessee affirmed the state-court judgments in Leggett v. Duke Energy Corp., 308 S.W. 3d 843 (Tenn. 2010), and State of Nevada v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 289 P.3d 1186 (Nev. 2012), cert denied. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit’s order reversing the District of Nevada’s opinion in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., and that case now awaits further proceedings.

Judgment for individual against out-of-state company: Represented Texas energy professional in breach-of-contract claim against international energy marketer. Following contested motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to overturn the court’s default judgment, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of Ms. Tabor’s client. Dodd v. Savino, 426 SW 3d 275 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014).

Fraud claims upheld against dismissal motion: Represented overseas investor in securities fraud action against renewable energy producer. Case settled on favorable terms shortly after Ms. Tabor’s client defeated motion to dismiss, Borneo Energy Sendirian Berhad v. Sustainable Power Corp. 646 F.Supp.2d 860 (S.D. Tex. 2009), and won key ruling on protection of intellectual property and trade secrets.