alison9617 Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 I'm faxing a copy of this complaint to Executive Customer Relations of an OC of mine and giving them 10 days to make a reasonable offer. I'm sure they won't, so I plan on filing this in two weeks. Basically this case about an OC that reported late payments, a charge off, made non-pp inqs all after account was PIF at the end of an auto lease. (I purchased the car at lease end) Please let me know if I'm way off base on anything. I appreciate all comments.I plan on filing this in federal court in NY Southern District. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief 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 and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq (hereafter the "FDCPA").JURISDICTION AND VENUE2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 15 U.S.C. § 1692p. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(.PARTIES3. Plaintiff alison9617, is a natural person residing in the State of New York, somewhere County. She is a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a© and 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).4. Upon information and belief, defendant A CRAPPY CARMAKER (hereafter "CRAPPY") is a corporation that maintains headquarters in Detroit, MI, and is authorized to do business in the State of New York through its registered agent in New York City, New York and is a "person" as defined in 15 U.S.C § 1681a(.5. Upon information and belief, CRAPPY regularly furnishes information to credit reporting agencies.6. Upon information and belief, defendants John Doe 1-10 are or were at all times pertinent hereto, employees of CRAPPY and are "person"s as defined in 15 U.S.C § 1681a(.7. Upon information and belief, defendant CRAPPY is a "debt collector" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) which says 'includes any creditor, in the process of collecting his own debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.' See exhibit marked 'S'.8. Upon information and belief, defendant CRAPPY is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4).STATEMENT OF FACTS9. In January 1999, Plaintiff, joint with her grandmother, and Defendant CRAPPY entered into a 36 month lease agreement for a 1999 PieceOfCrap (hereafter the "vehicle"), where the Plaintiff was the lessee and Defendant was the lessor. This lease agreement created account xxxxxxx (hereafter the "account"). See exhibit marked 'A'.10. On February 2, 2002 Plaintiff exercised her option to purchase the vehicle at lease-end, for the predetermined amount as designated in the original lease agreement. Plaintiff on this date paid $xxxx which was accepted as payment in full at xxxxxx dealership. See Bill of Sale, exhibit marked 'B'.11. Sometime in March 2002, Plaintiff and her grandmother received correspondence from defendant that indicated they had fulfilled their contractual obligations and the lien on the vehicle was now satisfied.12. Sometime in March 2002, Plaintiff received a title from Department of Motor Vehicles, that was free and clear of any liens.13. On December 24, 2002 Plaintiff applied for a mortgage and was denied. Mortgage broker sent Plaintiff a copy of her tri-merge credit report used to make the denial of credit. Tri-merge credit report show Defendant reported the account as being thirty days late thirteen times on Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion credit reports. Ten of these lates were in 2002. See exhibit marked 'C'.14. On or around December 30, 2002, Plaintiff initiated disputes of this account with Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion via the internet.15. On January 21, 2003, Plaintiff received, via postal mail,TransUnion's investigation results and an updated copy of her credit report. The updated credit report showed the account as having a balance of $407 past due and that it was charged off in December 2002. See exhibit marked 'D'.16. On January 21, 2003, Plaintiff received, via postal mail, Equifax's investigation results and an updated copy of her credit report. The updated credit report showed the account as having 30 day late payments reported for June 2002, August 2002, and December 2002. See exhibit marked 'E'.17. On January 21, 2003, Plaintiff received, via postal mail, Experian's investigation results and an updated copy of her credit report. The updated credit report showed the account as having a balance of $407 that was written off in December 2002. See exhibit marked 'F'.18. On January 28, 2003, Defendant made an inquiry into Plaintiff's Experian credit report. See exhibit marked 'G'.19. On December 31, 2003, Plaintiff ordered and received her Equifax credit report. The account was reported as having thirty day late payments made in May 2002, June 2002, August 2002, and December 2002. See exhibit marked 'H'.20. On December 31, 2003, Plaintiff ordered and received her Experian credit report. The account was reported as having a balance of $407 charged off in December 2002. See exhibit marked 'I'.21. On January 8, 2004, Plaintiff initiated a dispute of the account with Experian via Experian's website.22. On January 8, 2004, Plaintiff initiated a dispute of the account with Equifax via Equifax's website.23. On January 8, 2004, Plaintiff contacted the Defendant via telephone and spoke with Defendant's employee, John Doe. Plaintiff asked him to remove the late payments in 2002 as well as the charge off status from her TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian credit reports. Plaintiff also requested written confirmation of their conversation. Mr. Doe agreed to Plaintiff's requests.24. On or around January 12, 2004, Plaintiff received a letter via mail from the Defendant re-iterating everything alleged in paragraph #21. See exhibit marked 'J'.25. On January 23, 2004, Plaintiff ordered and received her TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian credit reports via the internet. Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report showed this account to have a sixty day late payment made in March 2002. Plaintiff's Experian credit report showed this account to have a balance of $407 that had been charged off in December 2002. Plaintiff's Equifax credit report showed this account to have thirty day late payments made in June 2002, August 2002, and December 2002.26. On January 23, 2004, Plaintiff again contacted the Defendant via telephone and spoke with Mr. Doe. She communicated her findings (as summarized by paragraph #23) to him and demanded again that the reporting of this account be fixed immediately, by removing all late payments in 2002 and the charge-off status of the account on her TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian credit reports. Mr. Doe agreed and sent Plaintiff via facsimile another letter. See exhibit marked 'K'.27. On January 23, 2004, Defendant made an inquiry into Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report. This inquiry was marked as 'collection purpose'. See exhibit marked 'L'.28. On January 23, 2004, Defendant made an inquiry into Plaintiff's Experian credit report. See exhibit marked 'M'.29. On January 30, 2004, Plaintiff received Experian's investigation results for the account and an updated credit report. The updated credit report showed the account as 'Paid/Account Charge off', $407 written off, and the account was charged off in December 2002. See exhibit marked 'N'.30. On January 30, 2004, Plaintiff initiated a dispute of the account with Experian via Experian's website.31. On or around February 6, 2004, Plaintiff received written correspondence dated February 3, 2004 from Experian that indicated they would no longer investigate the account because it had been previously verified by the source. See exhibit marked 'O'.32. On February 10, 2004, Plaintiff initiated a dispute of the account with TransUnion via TransUnion's website.33. On February 13, 2004, Plaintiff applied for a mortgage with Fairmont Funding. The mortgage broker inquired specifically about the charged off GMAC account. The tri-merge report used in this application indicated an I-9 rating (charge off) and a thirty day late payment in February 2002. See exhibit marked 'P'.34. On February 13, 2004, Plaintiff ordered and recieved her Experian credit report via the internet. The credit report showed the account as 'Paid account/was a charge off' and a ninety day late payment in December 2002. See exhibit marked 'Q'.35. On March 10, 2004, Plaintiff received TransUnion's investigation results of the account and an updated TransUnion credit report. The updated credit report showed the account as updated in January 2004 and currently '30 days past due'. See exhibit marked 'R'.36. On or around July 12, 2004, Plaintiff and her grandmother received written correspondence dated July 8, 2004 from 'CRAPPY ARC' indicating that the account was 'EXTREMELY (PAST DUE OR DELINQUENT)' and that to discontinue additional collection activity they were to write a check in the amount of $406.96 made payable to Defendant and send it along with the payment coupon attached to the letter IMMEDIATELY. This communication with the Plaintiff satisfies the FDCPA's definition of a "debt collector" and therefore Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA 803(6). See exhibit marked 'S'.37. On or around July 12, 2004, Plaintiff called the telephone number on the collection notice referred to in paragraph #35. The call was answered "Asset Recovery Center". Plaintiff spoke to 'John Doe 2' and she again related that the account was satisfied. Mr. Doe 2 agreed to cease collection activity.38. On August 23, 2004 Plaintiff ordered her TransUnion credit report and received it via postal mail a few days later. Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report dated August 23, 2004 showed the account as thirty days past due. See exhibit marked 'T'.39. On August 23, 2004, Plaintiff initiated a dispute of the account with TransUnion via TransUnion's website.40. On or around September 3, 2004, Plaintiff received written correspondence from TransUnion dated August 31, 2004 that indicated they considered her dispute frivolous because it had been previously verified by the Defendant. See exhibit marked 'U'.41. On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff received TransUnion's investigation results and an updated credit report. The credit report showed the account as 'thirty days past due' and has having been previously verified. See exhibit marked 'V'.42. Defendant received letter from Plaintiff on September 7, 2004, as evidenced by a U.S. Postal Certified Mail receipt signed for by the Defendant on September 7, 2004. Plaintiff's letter asked for compensation for the numerous FCRA violations as well as actual damages due to numerous denials of credit, higher interest rates, and the humiliation this has caused her. See exhibits marked 'W' and 'X'.43. On or around, October 6, 2004, Plaintiff received written correspondence dated September 30, 2004 from the Defendant's Executive Customer Relations. They indicated that they were not agreeable to compensation to the Plaintiff, but that they were working diligently to correct their mistakes. See exhibit marked 'Y'.CAUSES OF ACTION/CLAIMS44. COUNT 1: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-43 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed to update and correct Plaintiff's TransUnion consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.45. COUNT 2: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-44 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed a second time to update and correct Plaintiff's TransUnion consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed a second time to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.46. COUNT 3: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-45 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed a third time to update and correct Plaintiff's TransUnion consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed a third time to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.47. COUNT 4: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-46 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant made an inquiry into Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report without a permissible purpose. A permissible purpose is required by FCRA 604.48. COUNT 5: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-47 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed to update and correct Plaintiff's Experian consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's Experian credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.49. COUNT 6: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-48 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed a second time to update and correct Plaintiff's Experian consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed a second time to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's Experian credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.50. COUNT 7: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-50 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant made an inquiry into Plaintiff's Experian credit report without a permissible purpose. A permissible purpose is required by FCRA 604.51. COUNT 8: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-51 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant made a second inquiry into Plaintiff's Experian credit report without a permissible purpose. A permissible purpose is required by FCRA 604.52. COUNT 9: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-52 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant failed to update and correct Plaintiff's Equifax consumer report as required under FCRA 623( and 611. Defendant failed to list the account as disputed on Plaintiff's Equifax credit report as required under FCRA 623( and 611.53. COUNT 10: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-53 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant misrepresented the status of the account by reporting late payments and classifying the account as a charge off on Plaintiff's Experian credit report, in violation of the FDCPA 807(2).54. COUNT 11: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-54 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant misrepresented the status of the account by reporting late payments made, specifically those after February 2002, on Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report, in violation of the FDCPA 807(2).55. COUNT 12: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-55 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant misrepresented the status of the account by reporting late payments made, specifically those after February 2002, on Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report, in violation of the FDCPA 807(2).56. COUNT 13: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-56 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant misrepresented the status of the account by reporting late payments made, specifically those after February 2002, on Plaintiff's Equifax credit report, in violation of the FDCPA 807(2).57. COUNT 14: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-56 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant's actions and inactions constituted libel with the result being defamation of Plaintiff's reputation with regards to her credit rating. This defamation caused the Plaintiff great difficulty in obtaining credit and favorable terms for those offers of credit she did obtain. This defamation caused the Plaintiff extreme mental anguish.58. COUNT 15: Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs #1-57 as though they were fully incorporated herein. Defendant's actions and inactions constituted libel per se with the result being defamation of Plaintiff's reputation with regards to her credit rating. This defamation caused the Plaintiff great difficulty in obtaining credit and favorable terms for those offers of credit she did obtain. This defamation caused the Plaintiff extreme mental anguish.JURY TRIAL DEMAND59. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so tryable.PRAYER FOR RELIEF60. As a result of this conduct, action and inaction of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages by the loss of credit, the loss of favorable terms for credit-related transactions, mental anguish, emotional stress, and humiliation, whereby Plaintiff seeks judgment in her favor and damages based on the following requested relief:Count 1: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000Count 2: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $10,000Count 3: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000Count 4: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000Count 5: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000Count 6: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $10,000Count 7: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000Count 8: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $40,000Count 9: Actual damages in the amount of $1,000Count 10: Actual damages in the amount of $5,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $1,000Count 11: Actual damages in the amount of $5,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $1,000Count 12: Actual damages in the amount of $5,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $1,000Count 14: Actual damages in the amount of $25,00 Punitive damages in the amount of $75,000 Count 15:Actual damages in the amount of $50,000 Punitive damages in the amount of $150,000 Costs associated with this lawsuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts