Rough draft to Citi... It's on boys..

[merkurfan]

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE COUNTY OF THISONE, THAT ONE JUDICAL DISTRICT

MERKURFAN,

Plaintiff

V

CITI FINANCIAL,

Defendant

JURISDICTION

1. This action containing complaints for declaratory relief and for damages is brought against the defendant to secure due process of law, equal protection and other rights.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff has a legal residence of, My City, Minnesota, County of THISONE.

3. Defendant CitiFinancial is, upon information and belief, a Corporation headquartered in Hanover, MD, and is engaged in business in the state of Minnesota and the County of THISONE.

FACTS

4. Defendant on or about March 2001 Placed information on the Plaintiffs personal Experian credit report

5. Defendant updated said information on a routine basis during the course of the alleged account from March 2001 to January 2005

6. During the time stated in line 5 Defendant failed to maintain the information in accordance to the FCRA. Errors include 90 day late payments, but no mention of 30 or 60 day late payments beforehand. Date of last payment reported as December 2002 but first 90 day late payment posted August 2003 a laps of 9 months. Reporting an on time payment May of 2005 then again reporting charged off June 2005. This information cannot be a true and correct reflection of any account because it is impossible for a debtor to become 90 days late without first becoming 30 days, then 60 days late.

7. Plaintiff disputed information on his personal credit report placed by Defendant directly with Experian 10/2005 asking all items be investigated including actual ownership of the account by Experians online dispute system.

8. Experian completed their investigation with the Defendant and the Defendant indicated account information in line 6 was factual.

9. Plaintiff disputed information on his personal credit report placed by CitiFinancial directly with Experian 08/2007 asking all items be investigated including actual ownership of the account by phone with Experian

10. Experian completed their investigation with the Defendant and the Defendant indicated account information in line 6 was factual.

11. Plaintiff sent via certified mail a request pursuant to the FCRA to the address listed on his personal credit report for CitiFinancial requesting an investigation in to the alleged account.

12. Post office was unable to deliver mail as address provided on report by Defendant was bad. Letter was lost by the USPS on its return route to Plaintiff. However, USPS has provided electronic tracking of the letter to the point that it was not able to be delivered.

13. Plaintiff obtained correct address for CitiFinancial and resent dispute letter 11/12/2007

14. Defendant responded 11/27/2007 (exhibit NUMBER ME) stating their information is still correct. Ignoring request for proof of account being opened by Plaintiff and restated that their reported information is true and factual.

LEGAL CLAIMS

15. The actions of the Defendant were/are a violation of law as follows:

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 623

Fine: $1,000.00

Plaintiff disputed alleged debt and Defendant failed to report it as disputed to credit bureaus

B. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 623

Fine: $1,000.00

Plaintiff disputed alleged debt and pointed out obvious errors in the Defendants reported information and the Defendant not only ignored this information but held that the information is correct.

C. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 616

Fine: $1,000.00

Defendant after being informed that reported information could not possibly be true and correct willfully neglected to correct their errors.

D. US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 00-15946, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan

Fine: Extent of damages incurred by wronged party as deemed by the courts

Defendant reported Plaintiff’s credit history inaccurately resulting in financial injury and defamation of character.

RELIEF REQUESTED

16. Plaintiffs cost of this action.

17. Damages in the amount of $1000.00 compensatory and $10,000 punitive.

18. Permanent removal of all Defendants negative account trade lines from Plaintiffs files with all credit reporting agencies public and private along with proof will be permanently barred, also proof that this account will not be sold or transferred to another company.

I have copies of reports to dig though and print outs from Experian when I disputed the information. I however don't have anything to show I dipsuted by phone other than the updated "remains" letter from EX. I have a pretty solid paper trail. Also, in their BBB response to me today, they admit they changed the account number, but they do not say what the original account number was, or where the account was opened. I should probably find a way to work that in to the complaint.

[Rick9972]

First off you do not have a right of action under FCRA for them failing to mark a account as disputed. Add a FDCPA violation for failing to mark disputed.

[merkurfan]

I have a right of action under willfull non compliance. Can't go after them on the FDCPA they are a OC.

[musiqdefunk]

Hey not to get off track but can you please send me the address to CitiFinancial where you sent your correspondence. I am going through the same thing.. we can sue together.

[merkurfan]

I don't have it infront of me. But I think it's po box 499 hanover MD...

[Rick9972]

It is my understanding that you have no right of action under any circumstance for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a).

Read 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2©:

c) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY- Except as provided in section 621©(1)(, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of--

(1) subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder;

(2) subsection (e) of this section, except that nothing in this paragraph shall limit, expand, or otherwise affect liability under section 616 or 617, as applicable, for violations of subsection ( of this section; or

(3) subsection (e) of section 615.

(d) LIMITATION ON ENFORCEMENT- The provisions of law described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection © (other than with respect to the exception described in paragraph (2) of subsection ©) shall be enforced exclusively as provided under section 621 by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in section 621

Then read 15 U.S.C. § 1681t((1)(F):

( General exceptions. No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State

(1) with respect to any subject matter regulated under

(F) section 623 [§ 1681s-2], relating

to the responsibilities of persons who

furnish information to consumer

reporting agencies.....

This is the reason I call the FCRA "The Creditor's Protection Act".

Now if you figure someway around 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2©, I can help you with 15 U.S.C. § 1681t((1)(F).

[cjtx]

You need to reword your FCRA claims. You only have a private right of action for violations of FCRA 623(. It has to do with the procedure furnishers of info need to follow whenever there is a dispute: conduct an investigation, review your evidence, report the results to CRA, if the info is inaccurate or wrong report it to the other CRAs, or if the item is inaccurate and cannot be verified: modify it, delete it or block reporting of the item.

15 U.S.C. 1681i

[Rick9972]

LEGAL CLAIMS

15. The actions of the Defendant were/are a violation of law as follows:

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 623

Fine: $1,000.00

Plaintiff disputed alleged debt and Defendant failed to report it as disputed to credit bureaus

B. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 623

Fine: $1,000.00

Plaintiff disputed alleged debt and pointed out obvious errors in the Defendants reported information and the Defendant not only ignored this information but held that the information is correct.

C. Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 616

Fine: $1,000.00

Defendant after being informed that reported information could not possibly be true and correct willfully neglected to correct their errors.

D. US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 00-15946, Nelson vs. Chase Manhattan

Fine: Extent of damages incurred by wronged party as deemed by the courts

Defendant reported Plaintiff’s credit history inaccurately resulting in financial injury and defamation of character.

RELIEF REQUESTED

16. Plaintiffs cost of this action.

17. Damages in the amount of $1000.00 compensatory and $10,000 punitive.

18. Permanent removal of all Defendants negative account trade lines from Plaintiffs files with all credit reporting agencies public and private along with proof will be permanently barred, also proof that this account will not be sold or transferred to another company.

This is my suggestion on a possible rewrite *shrugs*

LEGAL CLAIMS

15. The actions of the Defendant were/are a violation of law as follows:

Count 1: Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a))

Plaintiff disputed, false information reported on Plaintiff's Credit Report, to the Credit Reporting Agency and directly to the Defendant. Both organizations failed to mark the disputed information as disputed on the Plaintiff's Credit Report.

Count 2: Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2()

Plaintiff disputed alleged debt with the Credit Reporting Agency, by supplying information that proved obvious errors in the Defendants reported information. The Defendants failed to perform a fair and reasonable investigation, ignored the correct information provided and then verified the incorrect information as correct.

RELIEF REQUESTED

16. Count 1: Plaintiff has no private right of action for this violation of the law. Plaintiff will forward a copy of this complaint to the XXXXXX State Attorney General and to the Federal Trade Commission. These entities do have right of action for this violation.

17. Count 2:

a. Damages in the amount of $1000.00 compensatory and $10,000 punitive.

b. Permanent removal of all Defendants negative account trade lines from Plaintiffs files with all credit reporting agencies public and private along with proof will be permanently barred, also proof that this account will not be sold or transferred to another company

c. Any other relief that the court may feel is fair and just.

Good Luck!!!

[Krash]

merk, u are suing a company that had a CO with you and still gave you over 7gs in credit? Come on guy leave it alone, that is mean!

[merkurfan]

Uhh... yeah I am! It's a different arm of the company. And the information they have on my EX report is getting in my way of a new home. So ya, I'll give up the cards if I have to to get the TL off my reports.

I like ricks updates too

[Amerikaner83]

Merk...maybe some pizza will help ya? Soon...

[Krash]

this is funny, cold and heartless lol........ well good luck

[TTigggers]

Boy I better get some more popcorn and drinks. This is a great new side show to watch while Amerikaner awaits his next response.

Good luck.

Nail their A** to the wall. LOL

[merkurfan]

this is funny, cold and heartless lol........ well good luck

Would citi treat me any different if I made a mistake and sent their payment to the wrong address??

Nope.

Why should I be any more warm and cuddly than they are??

[Krash]

you got a point there, everyone is all nice and stuff till you miss a payment then bam "you sorry POS lol"

[merkurfan]

I'd be kissing that 0% apr good bye.. they *might* wave the late fee though.

[merkurfan]

Alright, their reply to my letter pointing out their OBVIOUS mistakes was a carbon (right down to who sent it) copy of their original letter mailed to me. We right, it stays.

Heres what they have on EX (the only report they verify to)

CITIFINANCIAL

Address:

6323 ALBERMARLE ROAD

CHARLOTTE, NC 28212

No phone number available This is NOT a good address. Mail gets returned

Account Number:

234523q534523462346 This does not even match ANY account I might have held with them

Status: Transferred,closed/Account charged off. $5,897 written off.

Status Details: This item was verified and updated on Nov 2007.

Date Opened:03/2001

Type:Installment

Reported Since:08/2003 So let me get this right, they did NOT report for 2.5 years?????

Terms:118 Months

Date of Status:01/2005

Monthly Payment:$0 At this rate, no one could EVER pay a loan off

Last Reported:01/2005

Responsibility:Individual

Credit Limit/Original Amount:$7,389

High Balance:NA

Recent Balance:NA What???? no 0???

Recent Payment:NA

Creditor's statement: Purchased by another lender.Disputed at least 6 times!!!

Account History:

Charge Off as of Jun 2004 to Jan 2005, Aug 2003 to Apr 2004

So what happened in may 2004?? yup. They are reporting a ON TIME payment.

Late Payments (last 7 years):

TransUnion Experian Equifax

0

0

0

NEVER been late?? so how did it charge off again?????

[Experian]

Purchased by a another lender.

Unpaid balance reported as a loss by credit grantor.

Uhhh.. if someone bought the debt, what was unpaid?? where is the DISPUTED BY CONSUMER notation?

I think it's time to send the complaint as revised earlier in this thread.

[merkurfan]

oopsie

[Rick9972]

You will also have to name EX as a defendant.

The reason for this is:

1. Citi is only responsible in investigating the information that EX provides them.

2. Without naming EX, Citi will just claim they did not receive anything from EX and your case is dead. Note: They do not have to investigate direct disputes.

3. By naming EX as a defendant, EX will prove that Citi got the information from them, thus removing EX from the complaint. But they have done your job for you by proving in court that Citi actually received the dispute and correct information.

4. This should go a long way to proving willful intent also.

[merkurfan]

You will also have to name EX as a defendant.

The reason for this is:

1. Citi is only responsible in investigating the information that EX provides them.

True. I have provided citi with copies of their info on EX to. But i could toss EX in on the deal

2. Without naming EX, Citi will just claim they did not receive anything from EX and your case is dead. Note: They do not have to investigate direct disputes.

Actually, FCRA says they do, or deam Frivolus. They investigated and sent me 2 letters stating, their info is correct

3. By naming EX as a defendant, EX will prove that Citi got the information from them, thus removing EX from the complaint. But they have done your job for you by proving in court that Citi actually received the dispute and correct information.

Darn it, thats a darn good idea!

4. This should go a long way to proving willful intent also.

absolutly...

I am thinking of getting everything together and talking with a lawyer first. If I am going to play with the big dogs (citi AND ex) I don't think I wana go it alone.

[Rick9972]

I would say absolutely get yourself an attorney for this one. No small claims court for this case. Citi and EX both seem to automatically move their cases to Federal court.

[andbowd]

This is good info, thanks for sharing. I got a problem with them also. AB 85o

[dtronx]

I'm having the same problem with Washington Mutual / Providian. It's about to be on with them. There doing the same thing Citi is doing to you. I disputed it with TU on 11/07. When I got my updated CR it shows it was verified on 10/05 and never states Account disputed by consumer. Not to mention when I try and call WAMU to get any info on the account they kept transferring me to Arrow Financial who did an investigation and closed and removed all records from my CR. I don't see how WAMU can keep it on there.