The plaintiffs in this suit claim LexisNexis compiled background information about them without verifying the information or giving them a chance to dispute the information. The FCRA allows a person who was the subject of a report to see a summary of their FCRA rights, a copy of the report and they must be given the opportunity to dispute the information in the report before any action can be taken against them as a result.

Read more at Law360.

The post Rite Aid, LexisNexis Face Class Action Over FCRA Violations appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

The ABA

The post A Double-Edged Sword For Consumer Data Sellers appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

Read more at Philly.com

The post Jim Francis on FTC Credit Reporting Study appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Preliminary Statement

1. Defendants Trans Union, LLC,  Equifax Information Systems LLC, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., national consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), have been selling credit reports inaccurately marking Plaintiff as deceased.  When the CRAs inaccurately report a living consumer as deceased, Defendants make it practically impossible for that consumer to access credit, as it did with Plaintiff.  Defendants’ practice also harms the businesses that purchase its reports; as such companies cannot process credit applications due to the applicant’s lack of a credit score.  There is no good faith rationale to explain Defendants’ practice other than the generation of revenue.  If Defendants actually believed that Plaintiff was deceased, they had no legally permissible basis to sell his report.  If Defendants believed Plaintiff was alive, they knowingly sold his report with a gross inaccuracy.  Moreover, Defendants know that identity thieves use the credit information of truly deceased persons to commit credit fraud.  Defendants thus violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as set forth below.

Parties

1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Kemp, Texas.
2. Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principle place of business located at 1510 Chester Pike, Crum Lynne, PA.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 6 Clementon Road, East, Suite A2, Gibbsboro, NJ.
4. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.(“Experian”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 5 Century Drive, Parsippany, NJ.

Jurisdiction And Venue

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. §1331.
2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Factual Allegations

Defendant’s Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”

1. Defendants are each regulated as a “consumer reporting agency” (“CRA”) under the FCRA.  15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
2. Defendants sell millions of consumer reports (often called “credit reports” or “reports”) per day, and Defendants also sell credit scores.  15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
3. Pursuant to the FCRA, Defendants must follow procedures which assure that the reports they sell meet the standard of “maximum possible accuracy.”   15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
4. Pursuant to the FCRA, Defendants must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that reports are sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”  15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(a) & 1681b.
5. Defendants place a “deceased” notation or marking on reports when they are advised from any of their many data furnishing sources that a given consumer is deceased
6. The furnishing sources identify “deceased” consumers by marking the “status” of such consumer’s responsibility for any subject account with an “X” code in the ECOA field of an electronic data input format used in the credit reporting industry, known as Metro or Metro 2.
7. Defendants do not request or require a death certificate from any of their data sources which advise that a consumer is “deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
8. Defendants do not request or require any proof from any data source which advises that a consumer is “deceased” showing that the consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
9. Defendants do not independently verify with any source that a consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
10. A deceased notation is a very unusual marking upon a credit file or credit report.
11. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendants send letters and/or other communications to consumers when certain information that may be considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished about said consumers to be placed in their consumer credit files, such as in cases where consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on their credit report, or in accordance with certain state laws, such as the consumer laws of Colorado.  But Defendants have no similar procedure to notify the consumers (such as a next of kin or executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate) when an “X” deceased code is furnished to Defendants to be placed in said consumer’s credit file or report.
12. Defendants regularly receive the “Death Master File” from the Social Security Administration listing by social security number those consumers that the government believes to be deceased.   But Defendants do not cross-reference the “X” code received from furnishers with the Death Master File in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as deceased via a furnishing source is also on the Death Master File before selling a credit report about said consumer, or at any time.
13. Defendants will only use the Death Master File to sell additional products for an additional fee which are designed to show whether a given consumer is truly deceased.
14. Indeed, Defendants employ no procedures at all which assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report and selling that report.
15. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendants employ no procedures which assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
16. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer communicates directly with Defendants, Defendants employ no procedures which assures that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
17. Once a “deceased” mark is placed upon a consumer’s report, Defendants will not calculate and will not provide a credit score for that consumer.
18. Nevertheless, Defendants routinely sells to third parties credit reports for persons with a “deceased” mark on their reports with no credit score, despite a request by the purchaser of the report for a credit score for that consumer.
19.  Upon Defendants’ reports with a “deceased” mark sold to third parties Defendants never calculate or provide a credit score for that consumer.
20. Defendants know that third party credit issuers use a credit score in order to process a given credit application.
21. Defendants know that many third party credit issuers require a credit score in order to process a given credit application.
22. Defendants know that consumers without credit scores are unable to secure any credit from most credit issuers.
23. Defendants know that living consumers are turned down for credit specifically because Defendants are reporting them as “deceased” and without a credit score.
24. Defendants have been put on notice for years through consumer disputes and lawsuits that living consumers are turned down for credit specifically because Defendants are reporting them as “deceased” and without a credit score.
25. Defendants have received and documented thousands of disputes from consumers complaining that their credit report had them erroneously marked as “deceased.”
26. Defendants know that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked as “deceased” on their credit reports via an erroneous furnishing of the “X” code, but said consumers are not on the Death Master File and are, in fact, alive.
27. Nevertheless, Defendants employ no procedures which assure that a consumer marked as “deceased” on one of Defendants’ reports is, in fact, deceased.
28. Even consumers who dispute the erroneous “deceased” status on their credit reports continue to be erroneously marked as deceased unless the furnishing source which provided the erroneous “X” code in the first instance decides to change the code.
29. Defendants have no independent procedure to change an erroneous deceased status on their own and will merely parrot their furnishing source in the case of a reinvestigation into the accuracy of the deceased status upon a consumer’s report, which reinvestigation was triggered by a consumer dispute.
30. Nor do Defendants employ any procedures to limit or stop the furnishing of reports to third parties for consumers which they have marked as “deceased” under any circumstances.
31. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendants will continue to sell credit reports about that consumer.
32. Defendants will only remove a deceased consumer’s file from their credit reporting database when they are no longer valuable to Defendants – meaning that nobody is continuing to buy that report from Defendants.
33. Defendants charge third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a consumer is deceased (“reports on the deceased”) as they would for any other report.
34. Defendants profit from the sale of reports on the deceased.
35. Defendants have in their credit reporting database hundreds of thousands of “deceased” tradelines corresponding to distinct credit files for individual consumers that they have marked as “deceased.”
36. Defendants know that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
37. Defendants know that the credit information and reports of truly deceased persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud.  Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying information of deceased consumers is known to Defendants to be a common and major source of identity theft.
38. Defendants know that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and widespread problems in our society.
39. Defendants warn the relatives of truly deceased consumers that identity theft can be committed using the credit reports and information of the deceased, and requires relatives to provide a death certificate or executorship papers, among other proofs, before accessing the deceased consumer’s credit information or report.
40. Defendants have no similar death certificate, executorship paper, or any other proof requirements for their data sources which report a consumer as deceased or for the buyers of their reports which access the purportedly deceased consumer’s information.
41. Indeed, Defendants sell reports on the deceased to third parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification that could reasonably explain a “permissible purpose” for purchasing or using a (supposedly) deceased consumer’s credit history and/or report.
42. For consumers who are deceased, there exists no permissible purpose under the FCRA for Defendants to ever sell their credit reports, absent a court order.
43. Defendants know that such reports contain a vast amount of personal identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer, information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent purposes.
44. For a period of time since 2012 Plaintiff had been marked by Defendants as “deceased” on his Experian, Equifax and Trans Union credit reports.
45. Plaintiff is not deceased.
46. Defendants did not calculate or provide any credit score for or on Plaintiff, even though they sold reports about him to third parties marking him as “deceased.”
47. Plaintiff was declined for credit for a loan in August 2012.  Among other transactions, known and unknown, Defendants sold a credit report marking Plaintiff as deceased to Citizens State Bank on, or around, August 28, 2012 when Plaintiff applied for a personal loan through that business.
48.  As a result, Defendants made it practically impossible for Plaintiff to obtain credit, and Plaintiff was indeed turned down for a personal loan in August 2012 as a result of Defendants’ reports erroneously marking Plaintiff as deceased.  Plaintiff also suffered harm to credit reputation and emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct.  Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress, including humiliation and embarrassment.
49. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
50. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

Count One – Violations Of The FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Defendants)

1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were each a “person” and a “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (f).
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4.  At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6.  The conduct of Defendants was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demanded

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1.  Actual damages;
2. Statutory damages;
3. Punitive damages;
4.  Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o; and
5. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:        /s/ Mark Mailman                            

MARK MAILMAN, ESQUIRE

ERIN A. NOVAK, ESQUIRE

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post Pennsylvania Complaint Against Big-Three Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

I.     Preliminary Statement

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereafter the “FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.         §§ 1681 et seq., as amended,

II.     Jurisdiction and Venue

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1337, and supplemental jurisdiction exists for the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
2.  Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

III.     Parties

1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in New Jersey
2. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (hereafter “Experian”) is a business entity that regularly conducts business in the State of New Jersey, and which has a principal place of business located at 5 Century Drive, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (hereafter “EIS”) is a business entity which regularly conducts business in the State of New Jersey, and which has a principal place of business located at 6 Clementon Road, East, Suite A2, Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026.

IV.       Factual Allegations

1. Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties (hereafter the “inaccurate information”) from at least September 2012 through the present.
2. The inaccurate information includes, but is not limited accounts with Chase Bank USA, CitiBank and personal identifying information.
3. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s credit worthiness. The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the Plaintiff, and that actually belong to another consumer. Due to Defendants’ faulty procedures, Defendants mixed the credit file of Plaintiff and that of another consumer with respect to the inaccurate information and other personal identifying information.
4. Defendants have been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate credit information and consumer credit reports that they have disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.  Defendants have repeatedly published and disseminated consumer reports to such third parties from at least September 2012 through the present.
5. Plaintiff’s credit reports and file have been obtained from Defendants and have been reviewed by prospective and existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, and the inaccurate information has been a substantial factor in precluding Plaintiff from receiving credit offers and opportunities, known and unknown. Plaintiff’s credit reports have been obtained from Defendants by such third parties from at least September 2012 through the present.
6. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of credit denial or loss of credit opportunity, credit defamation and emotional distress, including anxiety, frustration, embarrassment and, humiliation.
7. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
8. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

V.     CLAIMS

COUNT ONE – FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Experian and Equifax)

1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were “persons” and “consumer reporting agencies” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and (f).
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15 U.S.C. §1681o,  Experian and Equifax are liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements imposed on a consumer reporting agency of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b).
6. The conduct of Experian and Equifax was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Experian and Equifax are liable to Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

VI.     JURY TRIAL DEMAND

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

VII.     PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1. Actual damages;
2.  Statutory damages;
3. Punitive damages;
4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.       §§1681n and 1681o;
5. An order directing that Defendants immediately delete all of the inaccurate information from Plaintiff’s credit reports and files and cease reporting the inaccurate information to any and all persons and entities to whom they report consumer credit information;
6. An order directing that Defendants send to all persons and entities to whom they have reported Plaintiff’s inaccurate information within the last three years Plaintiff’s updated and corrected credit report information; and
7. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Plaintiff hereby designates John Soumilas as trial counsel in the above-captioned matter.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this designation as necessary.

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

I, Mark D. Mailman, counsel of record do hereby certify pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1(d) that relief other than monetary damages is sought and that the damages sought are in excess of $150,000.  I further certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not the subject of any action, arbitration or administrative hearing now pending in any court.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:        /s/ Mark D. Mailman                       

MARK D. MAILMAN

JOHN SOUMILAS

GEOFFREY H. BASKERVILLE

Land Title Building, 19^th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post New Jersey Complaint Against Experian, Equifax Due to Inaccurate Reporting appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Preliminary Statement

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer, against Defendants Trans Union, LLC and Equifax Information Services LLC for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681,et seq.

Parties

1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Marysville, WA.
2. Defendant, Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is a business entity that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 1510 Chester Pike, Crum Lynne, PA.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 6 Clementon Road, East, Suite A2, Gibbsboro, NJ.

Jurisdiction And Venue

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Factual Allegations

1. Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties (“inaccurate information”) from at least October 2012 through present. The inaccurate information includes a collection account with Comcast Cable Ft. Myers, a civil judgment and identifying personal information.
2. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.  The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the Plaintiff, and that actually belong to another consumer.  Due to Defendants’ faulty procedures, Defendants mixed the credit file of Plaintiff and that of another consumer with respect to the inaccurate information and other personal identifying information.
3. Defendants have been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate credit information and consumer credit reports that they have disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.  Defendants have repeatedly published and disseminated consumer reports to such third parties from at least October 2012 through the present.
4. Plaintiff’s credit report and file has been obtained from Defendants and have been reviewed by prospective and existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, and the inaccurate information has been a substantial factor in precluding Plaintiff from receiving different credit offers and opportunities, known and unknown.  Plaintiff’s credit reports have been obtained from Defendants by such third parties from at least October 2012 through the present.
5.  As of result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress.
6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
7. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

Count One – Violations Of The FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Defendants)

1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were each a “person” and a “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (f).
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6. The conduct of Defendants was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demanded

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1. Actual damages;
2. Statutory damages;
3. Punitive damages;
4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
5. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:        /s/ Mark Mailman                            

MARK MAILMAN, ESQUIRE

ERIN A. NOVAK, ESQUIRE

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post Pennsylvania Complaint Against Trans Union, Equifax for Falsely Reporting Civil Judgment, Collection Accounts appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Preliminary Statement

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer, against Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.

Parties

1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Stowe, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 5 Century Drive, Parsippany, NJ.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 6 Clementon Road, East, Suite A2, Gibbsboro, NJ.

Jurisdiction And Venue

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Factal Allegations

1. Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties (“inaccurate information”) from at least September 2012 through present. The inaccurate information includes accounts with Chase Bank, JCPenneys, Capital One, First Premier Bank, Target, American Express, HSBC Taxpayer Financial Service, Wells Fargo Financial, collection accounts with AFNI, a state tax lien and identifying personal information.
2. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.  The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the Plaintiff, and that actually belong to another consumer.  Due to Defendants’ faulty procedures, Defendants mixed the credit file of Plaintiff and that of another consumer with respect to the inaccurate information and other personal identifying information.
3. Defendants have been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate credit information and consumer credit reports that they have disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.  Defendants have repeatedly published and disseminated consumer reports to such third parties from at least September 2012 through the present.
4. Plaintiff’s credit report and file has been obtained from Defendants and have been reviewed by prospective and existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, and the inaccurate information has been a substantial factor in precluding Plaintiff from receiving different credit offers and opportunities, known and unknown.  Plaintiff’s credit reports have been obtained from Defendants by such third parties from at least September 2012 through the present.
5. As of result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress.
6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
7. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/oremployees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

Count One – Violations Of The FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Defendants)

1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were each a “person” and a “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (f).
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6. The conduct of Defendants was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demanded

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1.  Actual damages;
2. Statutory damages;
3. Punitive damages;
4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
5. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY: /s/ Mark Mailman                            

MARK MAILMAN, ESQUIRE

ERIN A. NOVAK, ESQUIRE

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post Pennsylvania Complaint Against Experian, Equifax for Mixing Credit Files and Inaccurately Reporting Tax Lien appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Preliminary Statement

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., as amended.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1.   Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2.    Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Parties

1.   Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in Rochester New York.
2.  Defendant CBC Innovis, Inc. (“CBC”) is a credit reporting agency and a reseller of credit information that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a place of business located at 170 East Town Street, Columbus, OH 43210.
3.  Defendant AmRent, Inc. (“AmRent”) is a credit reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principal place of business located at 875 Greentree Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15220.

Factual Allegations

1.  Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s criminal history to third parties (“inaccurate information”) from at least July 2012 through present. The inaccurate information includes a felony criminal record, as well as inaccurate personal information.
2.  The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s reputation and Plaintiff’s responsibility as a tenant.  The inaccurate information consists of a criminal record, which includes a second degree felony that does not belong to the Plaintiff, and that actually belongs to another individual.  Due to Defendants’ faulty procedures, Defendants mixed the credit file of Plaintiff and that of another person with respect to the inaccurate criminal information and other personal identifying information.
3.  CBC, in its capacity as a consumer reporting agency and a reseller of consumer information obtains consumer information secondarily from other consumer reporting agencies, including Defendant AmRent and one of the three major credit reporting agencies.  The consumer information maintained for individual consumers by Defendant AmRent and the major credit reporting agency consists of criminal records and other public records information, account information and other personal identifying consumer information.  Once CBC receives the requested consumer information, it assembles and merges the information into a CBC consumer report, which it then sells to third parties.
4.  In July 2012, CBC requested and obtained consumer credit information about the Plaintiff from AmRent.
5. Prior to sale of its consumer report about Plaintiff, CBC did nothing to reconcile the inconsistent reporting of the personal information and public records that do not belong to the Plaintiff by the sources of consumer information.
6.  Additionally, CBC did nothing to investigate the conflicting information received from the sources of consumer information.
7.  Notwithstanding the inconsistent reporting of the inaccurate personal information and public records, CBC sold a consumer credit report about the Plaintiff that included the inaccurate information.
8.  The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s reputation and Plaintiff’s responsibility as tenant.
9.  AmRent has also been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate criminal information and consumer reports that it has disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.  AmRent repeatedly published and disseminated consumer reports to such third parties from at least July 2012 through the present.
10.  Plaintiff’s consumer reports and file have been obtained from Defendants and have been reviewed many times by prospective and existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, in addition to potential landlords, and the inaccurate information has been a substantial factor in precluding Plaintiff from receiving many different offers and opportunities, known and unknown.  Plaintiff’s consumer reports have been obtained from Defendants by such third parties from at least July 2012 through the present.
11.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of residential rental denial or loss of a residential rental opportunity, defamation and emotional distress, including anxiety, frustration, embarrassment and humiliation.
12.  At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
13.  At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

Count One – Violations of the FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Defendants)

1.   Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2.  At all times pertinent hereto, AmRent was a “person” and “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (f).
3.  At all times pertinent hereto, CBC was a “person,” a “consumer reporting agency,” and a “reseller” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b), § 1681a(f) and § 1681a(u), respectively.
4.   At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
5.  At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(d).
6.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, CBC and AmRent are  liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements imposed on a consumer reporting agency of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
7.  The conduct of CBC and AmRent was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, CBC and AmRent are liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demanded

1.  Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

Prayer for Relief

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1.  Actual damages;
2.  Statutory damages;
3.  Punitive damages;
4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n  and 1681o; and
5.  Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:     /s/ James A. Francis               

JAMES A. FRANCIS

 ERIN A. NOVAK

 Land Title Building, 19^th Floor

100 South Broad Street

 (215) 735-8600

  Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post Pennsylvania Complaint Against CBC Innovis, Inc. and AmRent, Inc., for Falsely Reporting Criminal History on Consumers Background Check Report appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Preliminary Statement

1.  This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereafter the “FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., as amended.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1.  Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337.
2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Parties

1.  Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in Nevada.
2.  Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (hereafter “Experian”) is a business entity that regularly conducts business in the Central District of California, and which has its headquarters and a principal place of business located at 475 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, California  92626.

Factual Allegations

1.  Defendant has been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties (hereafter the “inaccurate information”) from at least July 2012 to the present.
2.  The inaccurate information includes, but is not limited to, accounts with American Savings Bank, American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, Central Pacific Bank, Central Pacific Homeloan, Chase Bank USA, Pier 1 Imports, Citibank, Discover Financial Services LLC, FIA Card Services, GECRB/Care Card, GE Capital/Mervyns, GMAC, M&T Bank Mortgage, Malaga Bank FSB, New Century Mortgage Corp., Ocwen Loan Servicing, Onewest Bank, Pacific Monarch Resorts, PNC Mortgage, Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Home Depot, Universal Card, US Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Ann Taylor, Chadwicks of Boston, LA Redoute, Metro Style, Newport News, Spiegel, Victoria’s Secret, Women Within , as well as inaccurate personal identifying information.
3.  The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s credit worthiness.  The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the Plaintiff, and that actually belong to another consumer.  Due to Defendant’s faulty procedures, Defendant mixed the credit file of Plaintiff and that of another consumer with respect to the inaccurate information and other personal identifying information.
4.  Defendant has been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate credit information and consumer credit reports that it has disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.
5.  Plaintiff has applied for and has been denied various loans and extensions of consumer credit and the basis for these denials was the inaccurate information that appears on Plaintiff’s credit reports, which was a substantial factor for those denials.
6.  Plaintiff’s credit reports and file have been obtained from Defendant and have been reviewed by prospective and existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, and the inaccurate information has been a substantial factor in precluding Plaintiff from receiving credit offers and opportunities, known and unknown.
7.   As of result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress, including humiliation and embarrassment.
8.   At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant herein.
9.  At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendant, as well as that of its agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

First Claim for Relief

Violation of FCRA

1.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2.   At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was a “person” and “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and (f).
3.  At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4.  At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6.  The conduct of Defendant was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demand

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendant, based on the following requested relief:

1.  Actual damages;
2.  Statutory damages;
3.  Punitive damages;
4.  Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and  1681o; and
5.  Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________

Stephanie R. Tatar

The Tatar Law Firm

3500 West Olive Avenue

Suite 300

Burbank, CA 91505

Telephone: (323) 744-1146

Facsimile: (888) 778-5695

The post California Complaint Against Experian for Mixing Credit Files and Reporting Inaccurate Information appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Preliminary Statement

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against Equifax Information Services LLC and Trans Union, LLC. for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., as amended.

Parties

1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Pinellas Park, Florida.
2. Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principle place of business located at 1510 Chester Pike, Crum Lynne, PA 19022.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has a principle place of business located at 6 Clementon Road, East, Suite A2, Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026.

Jurisdiction & Venue

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. §1331.
2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Factual Allegations

Defendants’ Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”

1. Defendants are each regulated as a “consumer reporting agency” (“CRA”) under the FCRA.  15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
2. Defendants sell millions of consumer reports (often called “credit reports” or “reports”) per day, and Defendants also sell credit scores.  15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
3. Pursuant to the FCRA, Defendants must follow procedures which assure that the reports they sell meet the standard of “maximum possible accuracy.”   15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
4. Pursuant to the FCRA, Defendants must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that reports are sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”  15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(a) & 1681b.
5. Defendants place a “deceased” notation or marking on reports when they are advised from any of their many data furnishing sources that a given consumer is deceased.
6. The furnishing sources identify “deceased” consumers by marking the “status” of such consumer’s responsibility for any subject account with an “X” code in the ECOA field of an electronic data input format used in the credit reporting industry, known as Metro or Metro 2.
7. Defendants do not request or require a death certificate from any of their data sources which advise that a consumer is “deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
8. Defendants do not request or require any proof from any data source which advises that a consumer is “deceased” showing that the consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
9. Defendants do not independently verify with any source that a consumer is, in fact, deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
10. A deceased notation is a very unusual marking upon a credit file or credit report.
11.  In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendants send letters and/or other communications to consumers when certain information that may be considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished about said consumers to be placed in their consumer credit files, such as in cases where consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on their credit report, or in accordance with certain state laws, such as the consumer laws of Colorado.  But Defendants have no similar procedure to notify the consumers (such as a next of kin or executor or administrator of the consumer’s estate) when an “X” deceased code is furnished to Defendants to be placed in said consumer’s credit file or report.
12. Defendants regularly receive the “Death Master File” from the Social Security Administration listing by social security number those consumers that the government believes to be deceased.   But Defendants do not cross-reference the “X” code received from furnishers with the Death Master File in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as deceased via a furnishing source is also on the Death Master File before selling a credit report about said consumer, or at any time.
13. Defendants will only use the Death Master File to sell additional products for an additional fee which are designed to show whether a given consumer is truly deceased.
14. Indeed, Defendants employ no procedures at all which assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report and selling that report.
15. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendants employ no procedures which assure that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
16. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer communicates directly with Defendants, Defendants employ no procedures which assures that a consumer with a “deceased” mark on his/her report is, in fact, deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
17. Once a “deceased” mark is placed upon a consumer’s report, Defendants will not calculate and will not provide a credit score for that consumer.
18. Nevertheless, Defendants routinely sells to third parties credit reports for persons with a “deceased” mark on their reports with no credit score, despite a request by the purchaser of the report for a credit score for that consumer.
19. Upon Defendants’ reports with a “deceased” mark sold to third parties Defendants never calculate or provide a credit score for that consumer.
20. Defendants know that third party credit issuers use a credit score in order to process a given credit application.
21. Defendants know that many third party credit issuers require a credit score in order to process a given credit application.
22. Defendants know that consumers without credit scores are unable to secure any credit from most credit issuers.
23.  Defendants know that living consumers are turned down for credit specifically because Defendants are reporting them as “deceased” and without a credit score.
24. Defendants have been put on notice for years through consumer disputes and lawsuits that living consumers are turned down for credit specifically because Defendants are reporting them as “deceased” and without a credit score.
25. Defendants have received and documented thousands of disputes from consumers complaining that their credit report had them erroneously marked as “deceased.”
26. Defendants know that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked as “deceased” on their credit reports via an erroneous furnishing of the “X” code, but said consumers are not on the Death Master File and are, in fact, alive.
27. Nevertheless, Defendants employ no procedures which assure that a consumer marked as “deceased” on one of Defendants’ reports is, in fact, deceased.
28. Even consumers who dispute the erroneous “deceased” status on their credit reports continue to be erroneously marked as deceased unless the furnishing source which provided the erroneous “X” code in the first instance decides to change the code.
29. Defendants have no independent procedure to change an erroneous deceased status on their own and will merely parrot their furnishing source in the case of a reinvestigation into the accuracy of the deceased status upon a consumer’s report, which reinvestigation was triggered by a consumer dispute.
30. Nor do Defendants employ any procedures to limit or stop the furnishing of reports to third parties for consumers which they have marked as “deceased” under any circumstances.
31. For years after a consumer’s actual death, Defendants will continue to sell credit reports about that consumer.
32. Defendants will only remove a deceased consumer’s file from their credit reporting database when they are no longer valuable to Defendants – meaning that nobody is continuing to buy that report from Defendants.
33. Defendants charge third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a consumer is deceased (“reports on the deceased”) as they would for any other report.
34. Defendants profit from the sale of reports on the deceased.
35. Defendants has in their credit reporting database hundreds of thousands of “deceased” tradelines corresponding to distinct credit files for individual consumers that they have  marked as “deceased.”
36. Defendants know that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
37. Defendants know that the credit information and reports of truly deceased persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud.  Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying information of deceased consumers is known to Defendants to be a common and major source of identity theft.
38. Defendants know that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and widespread problems in our society.
39. Defendants warn the relatives of truly deceased consumers that identity theft can be committed using the credit reports and information of the deceased, and requires relatives to provide a death certificate or executorship papers, among other proofs, before accessing the deceased consumer’s credit information or report.
40. Defendants have no similar death certificate, executorship paper, or any other proof requirements for their data sources which report a consumer as deceased or for the buyers of their reports which access the purportedly deceased consumer’s information.
41. Indeed, Defendants sell reports on the deceased to third parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification that could reasonably explain a “permissible purpose” for purchasing or using a (supposedly) deceased consumer’s credit history and/or report.
42. For consumers who are deceased, there exists no permissible purpose under the FCRA for Defendants to ever sell their credit reports, absent a court order.
43. Defendants know that such reports contain a vast amount of personal identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer, information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent purposes.
44. For a period of time since 2010 and into 2012 Plaintiff had been marked by Defendants as “deceased” on his credit reports.
45. Plaintiff is not deceased.
46. Defendants did not calculate or provide any credit score for or on Plaintiff, even though they sold reports about him to third parties marking him as “deceased.”
47. Plaintiff was declined for credit for a personal medical loan in November 2010.  Additionally, among other transactions, known and unknown, Defendants sold credit reports marking Plaintiff as deceased to Nissan Automotive on or around, May 4, 2012 when Plaintiff applied for an automotive loan through that business.
48. As a result, Defendants made it practically impossible for Plaintiff to obtain credit, and Plaintiff was indeed turned down for a personal medical loan with GECRB in November 2010 and for an automobile loan in May 2012 as a result of Defendants’ reports erroneously marking Plaintiff as deceased.  Plaintiff also suffered harm to credit reputation and emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct.    Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress, including humiliation and embarrassment.
49. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
50. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

Count One  – Violations Of The FCRA

(Plaintiff v. Defendants)

1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were each a “person” and a “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and (f).
3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
4. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6. The conduct of Defendants was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

Jury Trial Demanded

1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendants, based on the following requested relief:

1. Actual damages;
2. Statutory damages;
3. Punitive damages;
4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o; and
5. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:      /s/ James A. Francis

JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE

ERIN NOVAK, ESQUIRE

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

The post Pennsylvania Complaint Against Trans Union, Equifax for Inaccurately Marking Consumer “Deceased” when Consumer is Living appeared first on Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C..