|
Pro Se Litigant Login
|
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Registration
|
|
Site registration is not required. However, if you wish to post on the message boards, there is a seperate registration at the boards. Just click on the "Message Boards" link in the Main Menu above and then click on the "Please register a user name" link which is located at the top right hand side of the board.
|
|
|
|
The Complaint
|
Page 1
The formating isn't the best, but don't have the time to mess with it...so here it is. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will find links to view scans of the Complaint as it was filed, excluding exhibits. I haven't decided whether or not to post the exhibits as yet. If you don't see the images, check back in a day or two as I might still be getting them up. I didn't realize how long this was until tonight...lol. Whew!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Whyspers,
PLAINTIFF,
vs. COMPLAINT
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and
XXXXXXXXX
d/b/a XXXXXXXXXXXX
DEFENDANTS.
The Plaintiff, Whyspers, pro se, respectfully shows to the Court and alleges, as follows:
1. At all times relevant herein the Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York and the County of XXXXXX, residing at XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX, NY XXXXX. Plaintiff’s Social Security No. is XXX-XX-XXXX.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Experian Information Services, Inc. (“Experian”), is a foreign corporation organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, with its office and principal place of business located at 505 City Parkway West, Orange, California 92868.
3. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, XXXXXXXXX d/b/a XXXXXXXXX is a foreign corporation organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at XXXXXXXXXXx, XXXXXX, DE XXXXX.
Cause(s) of Action
4. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) establishes federal jurisdiction for the Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.
(A) Defendant, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) did not follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy on Plaintiff’s credit report and refused to correct inaccurate information contained in Plaintiff’s consumer report in violation of the FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681(e) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i failed to reinvestigate the disputed information, or delete the item from the file within 30 days. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i also requires that (i) a consumer reporting agency provide a procedural description upon request by the consumer within 15 days after receiving said request and (ii) that a consumer reporting agency “shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer...”
(B) Defendant, XXXXXXXXXXX d/b/a XXXXXXXXX (“XXXXXXXX”) failed in their duty to correct and update incorrect information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) 15 U.S.C.1681s-2(b). Under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n (a) Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer. And further, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer.
Defendant, Experian
5. On or about October16, 2001, Plaintiff requested a copy of her consumer report as prepared by Experian. At that time, Plaintiff noticed an account she did not recognize being reported twice under the tradeline of XXXXXXX. The first tradeline was showing the account was due to age off the report in the year 2003. The second tradeline re-aged the account by two years and was showing as due to be removed in the year 2005. Plaintiff disputed the second account as being a duplicate listing while she pursued verification of this account with the Defendant XXXXXX.
6. Defendant Experian deleted the tradeline due to be removed in 2003 effectively “re-aging” the tradeline by two years which would cause same to remain on Plaintiff’s consumer report in excess of nine years, which is in direct violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(4) which prohibits Consumer Reporting Agencies from reporting chargeoffs that are more than seven years old.
7. On or about October 29, 2001, Plaintiff sent a letter (Exhibit “A”) to Experian disputing the re-aging of this account. Experian did not respond in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a) which states
“If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.”
8. On February 5, 2002, Plaintiff again sent a letter to Experian disputing the re-aging of this disputed account and included a previous credit report prepared by Experian showing the charge-off date of 1996, as well as a copy of a credit report prepared by Equifax showing a charge-off date of 1996. (Exhibit “B”)
9. On February 21, 2002, Defendant Experian, sent a letter to the Plaintiff informing her that they would not use the provided information in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(4) which states
“In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.”
(Exhibit “C”)
10. On March 7, 2002, Experian issued an updated consumer report stating that the account listed under the XXXXXXXXX tradeline had been verified. (Exhibit “D”)
11. On March 10, 2002, Plaintiff again submitted a dispute regarding this tradeline and making Experian aware of a dispute between herself and XXXXXXXX, again providing the information that the account had been re-aged and requesting Experian to go beyond their original source in their investigation to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in their reporting. (Exhibit “E”)
12. On March 18, 2002, Defendant, Experian responded that the item had previously been investigated and refused to look into the matter further. Experian disregarded their own consumer report, along with the consumer report of Equifax verified the disputed account as being accurate. (Exhibit “F”)
13. On or about March 27, 2002, Plaintiff spoke with a customer service representative at Experian and explained that she did not believe this account belonged to her as she did not recall ever having an account with XXXXXXXXX. The representative suggested disputing the account as being fraudulently opened. At this time, the fraud investigation being pursued by Experian has not yet been completed.
14. On six separate occasions, Plaintiff requested that Experian provide her with a description of the procedure they used in their investigation. Experian ignored each and every procedural request in direct violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
Defendant, XXXXXXX
15. On February 25, 2002, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant, XXXXXXXXX, requesting evidence of a contractual obligation for Plaintiff to pay Defendant, XXXXXXXXX, along with a copy of all statements while the account was open. (Exhibit “G”)
16. On March 7, 2002, Plaintiff contacted XXXXXXXXXX telephonically in an attempt to identify where this account came from. At the suggestion of a XXXXXXXXXXx customer service representative, Plaintiff sent a fax to XXXXXXXXX’s Fraud Department informing them that she did not recognize the account and that she suspected fraud. (Exhibit “H”). Plaintiff received no response to this fax.
17. On or about March 14, 2002, Plaintiff received a letter from XXXXXXXXXX providing the date the account was opened (September, 1995) and activated (six months later in March,1996), and a notification that statements of account, along with a copy of the original application were available at a charge of $3.00 for each document requested. (Exhibit “I”).
18. On March 18, 2002, Plaintiff mailed Defendant XXXXXX a check in the sum of $15.00 for a copy of the original application and the last four statements issued on the account. This check cleared Plaintiff’s account on March 20, 2002. (Exhibit “J”)
19. On March 26, 2002, Plaintiff spoke with a Customer Service Representative called XXXXXX and was told if she faxed a copy of the Universal Data Form from the collection agency who purchased the account showing that they had deleted the account from Plaintiff’s consumer report, XXXXXXXx would also delete the account. Plaintiff faxed this information on March 26, 2002. (Exhibit “K”).
20. On March 27, 2002, Plaintiff contacted XXXXXXXXXX to make sure the above referenced fax had been received. There was no record of the conversation Plaintiff had with XXXXXX, and no record of a fax being received. Again Plaintiff was unable to obtain any additional information regarding this alleged account.
21. On April 8, 2002, Plaintiff called XXXXXXXXX to find out the status of the ordered application and statements and was told that statements of the account and the original application were no longer available and that the $15.00 check had been applied to the balance as a payment on this disputed account.
22 Defendant has reported inaccurate information to Experian, Equifax (which was also re-aged between February 19, 2002 and February 23, 2002, after Plaintiff disputed the account with Equifax) and TransUnion (which currently is reporting this disputed account as being charged off in 2000) and when they were informed that Plaintiff disputed this account as inaccurate, failed to properly investigate in violation of 15 U.S.C.1681s-2(b). Any semblance of an investigation by the Defendant XXXXXXXXX would have clearly shown that this disputed account was inaccurate. Plaintiff contends that the repeated re-aging of this disputed account has been retaliatory in fashion based upon the Plaintiff disputing the account as inaccurate and requesting proof of the alleged debt.
Damages
23. In February, 2002, Plaintiff applied for credit with Discover and was informed that her application was processed by a credit scoring system that assigned a numerical value to the various items of information considered in evaluating an application”. Plaintiff contends that one or more of the above acts and practices by Defendant resulted in Plaintiff being assigned a lower score than she would otherwise have, resulting in the denial of credit.
24. A consumer score simulator on Experian’s website indicates that the correct reporting of this disputed account would raise Plaintiff’s score in excess of 40 points, which would mean the difference between Prime and Subprime interest rates. According to Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc., the company which developed the basis for all scoring models, the older a derogatory account is, the less affect it has on a consumers score.
CIVIL PENALTIES
25. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff has suffered denial of credit in the aggregate sum of $2,500, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress.
26. Defendant has maliciously, willfully, repeatedly and knowingly violated Plaintiff’s rights afforded her under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
27. The Plaintiff contends actual damages in the amount of $2,500.00 along with statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 for each of the the violations of the FCRA that the Defendants have committed, totaling $7,000.00 are appropriate.
28. Plaintiff seeks the immediate and permanent correction of this disputed account as well as a permanent injunction barring Defendant XXXXXXXXXX from reporting it incorrectly to any other consumer reporting agency.
29. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages as each of the Defendants’ actions towards Plaintiff was malicious and Defendants knowingly, willfully and repeatedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. Defendants’ actions constitute a wanton and gross disregard for the law. Plaintiff requests punitive damages in the amount of $28,500.00.
30. Plaintiff hereby seeks a trial by jury of any and all claims properly cognizable thereby.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests a Judgment of this Court awarding her economic, compensatory and punitive damages all as provided by law, attorney’s fees if Plaintiff retains an attorney during the pendency of this action, equitable relief, the costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as to the Court may be just and proper.
DATED: April 10, 2002 _________________________
Whyspers
Pro Se
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXX, NY XXXXX
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
|
Scans of the Complaint
Complaint-Page-1
Complaint-Page-2
Complaint-Page-3
Complaint-Page-4
Complaint-Page-5
Complaint-Page-6
Complaint-Page-7
| |
|
|
|
|
