#
ROBERT S. SOLA nU30EMfiR'121564UOC«POregon State Bar No. [email protected] S. Sola, P.C.8835 S.W.Canyon Lane, Suite 130Portland, Oregon 97225Telephone (503) 295-6880Facsimile (503) 291-9172
Attorney for Plaintiff
;r, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISIONCV12-387 HO
CURTIS JONES, Civil No.Onbehalfof himself and allotherssimilarlysituated, CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
(Fair Credit ReportingAct)
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, DEMANDFOR JURYTRIALa foreigncorporation,
Defendant.
I. Preliminary Statements
1.
This isa consumer class action brought for willful violations ofthe Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x ("FCRA"), against Equifax Information Services, LLC.
("Equifax"), a national consumer reporting agency. Inviolation ofthe FCRA, Equifax
intentionally misrepresents toconsumers who dispute apublic record item (such as a civil
judgment, tax lien orbankruptcy) appearing on their credit reports what Equifax allegedly did to
reinvestigate the dispute. Equifax falsely tells consumers thatit has directly contacted the
Page 1 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1
original source of the public record item. In fact, Equifax never contacts the original source ofa
public record when reinvestigating a consumer dispute. Equifax also falsely tells consumers that
acourthouse or other government office received notice ofthe dispute from Equifax and
conducted its own investigation ofthe disputed public record information. Equifax never
discloses the actual vendor from which it receives the public record information it reports about
consumers.Equifax also fails to provide the consumer with the business name and address of the
furnisher/vendor it contacted in connection with its reinvestigation ofthe disputed public record
information. Additionally, ifEquifax fails to remove an inaccurate public record from a
consumer's credit report, Equifax advises the consumer to take up his orher dispute with the
"source" ofthe public record, which it identifies as the court orother government office.
2.
None ofthese representations are true oraccurate. Courthouses and government offices
play no role in the reinvestigation ofa consumer's dispute.
3.
Equifaxmakes thesemisrepresentations in a form letter that it sent to Plaintiff and
thousands ofother consumers, with a statutorily-required description ofits purported
reinvestigation procedures concerning the consumer's dispute ofa public record item.
4.
Moreover, Equifax actually conceals thetrue source of itspublic record information,
which is another private business that traffics in credit information, not the courthouses or the
government. Equifax neverthelessmisleadingly directs consumers to courthouses and other
government buildings as a way to resolve their credit reporting disputes.
Page 2 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 12 Page ID#: 2
5.
As such, consumers who are the subject ofaninaccurate Equifax public record are thrust
into anendless maze ofwasting time and energy inaneffort to ascertain the true source ofthe
inaccurate public record being reported about them by Equifax. Consumers can go to the actual
courthouses only to learn that the courthouse has no record ofthe false information that Equifax
has placed on theconsumers' reports.
6.
As discussed below, Equifax's practice is carried out through a deliberate and intentional
policy and practice inwillful violation ofFCRA section 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii).
II. Parties
7.
PlaintiffCurtis Jones ("Plaintiff') isan adult individual who resides inPortland, Oregon,
and isa "consumer" asthat term isdefined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
8.
Equifax is a "consumer reporting agency" ("CRA") as that term isdefined by 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681a(f).
III. Jurisdiction
9.
Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.
IV. Factual Allegations
10.
Intheprevious five years, Equifax has obtained itspublic record information from
LexisNexis Risk &Information Analytics Group, Inc. ("LexisNexis"), a private business that
Page 3 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 3 of 12 Page ID#: 3
furnishes such information to national consumer reporting agencies. Agents and contractors of
LexisNexis based in Oregon assemble select information from public records in Oregon
courthouses ordatabases, including the Washington County Circuit Court, which is then sold to
Equifax for pennies.
11.
Equifax has not directly retrieved actual public records from courthouses orgovernment
offices for several years.
12.
Thepublic records information that Equifax receives fromLexisNexis is not the actual
court or taxing authority records. Rather it is a distilled version of those records, which does not
include all of the information available at the actual courthouses orgovernment offices where the
true records are housed.
13.
Equifax knows that both it and LexisNexis make mistakes in the distilled public records
information thatis acquired forpurposes of credit reporting.
14.
These distilled records frequently have numerical andotherfactual errors, donotcontain
the most updated status ofthe public records, invert the debtor and creditor, orare placed upon
the wrong consumer's report.
15.
Equifax receives thousands of consumer disputes permonth about public record items
appearing onpersonal credit reports. Equifax deletes ormodifies many ofthese disputed public
records, which it had reported inaccurately.
Page 4 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 4 of 12 Page ID#: 4
16.
In its letter to companies with the results ofthe reinvestigation ofdisputed public record
information, Equifax addresses, but fails to comply with the requirements of15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). That section provides that upon a consumer's request, Equifax provide "a
description ofthe procedure used todetermine the accuracy and completeness ofthe information
shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address ofany
furnisher ofinformation contacted in connection with such information and the telephone
number ofsuch furnisher, ifreasonably available." 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). Equifax
provides a description ofthe procedure inits reinvestigation results without waiting to receive a
request by the consumer.
17.
This isa very important and congressionally-mandated notice. It isthe consumer's only
opportunity to learn why a disputed public record has appeared orwhy itwill remain onhis or
her creditreportwith Equifax.
18.
Equifax sends a form letter toconsumers, including Plaintiff, who dispute public record
information. The form letter that it sent to Plaintiff and other consumers, with a statutorily-
required description of its purported reinvestigation procedure into the consumer's dispute ofa
public record item, falsely states that: (a) Equifax contacted the source ofthe public record
information directly; (b) Equifax provided the source with notification ofthe dispute, including
therelevant information the consumer submitted; and(c) the source reviewed the information
provided, conducted an investigation with respect to the disputed information and reported the
Page 5 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 5 of 12 Page ID#: 5
results back toEquifax. Equifax identifies the source as theactual court thathas therecord of the
disputed information. These representations are false.
19.
Further, despite the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii), Equifax's form letter
response does not identify the "business name and address ofany furnisher of information
contacted inconnection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if
reasonably available." The furnisher that iscontacted isLexisNexis. Equifax directs consumers
back totheir credit reports for the name and address of thefurnisher, buttells them it is the court
or other government office.
20.
On March 5,2010, Plaintiff contacted Equifax and disputed a 1992 tax lien that Equifax
was reporting incorrectly onhiscredit report, andtold Equifax thatit hadbeen released.
21.
On April 30,2010, Equifax responded to Plaintiff inwriting thatit had "verified" thatthe
public record item he disputed was reporting correctly. Equifax's response was provided ina
formletter datedApril 30,2010, and attachedhereto as ExhibitA.
22.
In the letter, Exhibit A, Equifax stated that Equifax contacted the source directly. The
letter falsely identified the source that was contacted as "Washington County Court, 155 N1st
Ave Ste 130, Hillsboro OR 97124-3084." However, Equifax did not contact the Washington
County Court directly.
Page 6 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 6 of 12 Page ID#: 6
23.
Equifax stated thatEquifax provided the source (Washington County Court) with
notification of Plaintiffs dispute including the relevant information Plaintiffsubmitted. Thatwas
not true. Equifax also statedthat the source (Washington County Court) reviewed the
information provided, conducted aninvestigation with respect to thedisputed information and
reported the results back to Equifax.These representations were also false.
24.
Equifax alsofailed to tell Plaintiff, despite the requirements of the FCRA, the business
name and address of the furnisher of information it contacted in connection withthedisputed
information and thetelephone number of thatfurnisher. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). That
furnisher was LexisNexis.
25.
Plaintiffdisputed the liento Equifax at least three more times buteach time Equifax
responded that it wasverified as reporting correctiy andsentthe same false andmisleading form
letters. Eventually, Equifax responded to Plaintiffs dispute indicating that the lienhadbeen
updated to report as satisfied/released.
26.
Equifax's form response letter to Plaintiff andto thousands of otherconsumers is nothing
buta sham, intended to hide the facts that: (a)Equifax does notactually get itspublic records
from courthouses or government offices; (b)Equifax paysonly pennies to a private business for
distilled andhighly unreliable public records information that it placeson consumer credit
reports; (c)Equifax does not really reinvestigate public recorddisputes, it pushes it off on
LexisNexis; (d) Equifax does not actually contactcourthouses or government officesbefore it
Page 7 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 7 of 12 Page ID#: 7
determines that inaccurate and harmfulpublic record items should remain on consumers' credit
reports; and (e) courthouses and government officesdo not conductany investigation of a
consumer's dispute.
27.
Tomakemattersworse, with its responseform letters, Equifaxburdens courthouse and
government officeswith consumer complaints stemming fromEquifax's ownmisleading credit
reporting and reinvestigation practices. The form response letter advisedconsumers that "Ifyou
haveanyadditional questions or concerns, pleasecontactthe sourceof that information [i.e.,the
court] directly."
28.
At all timespertinenthereto, Equifax's conductwas a result of its deliberate policies and
practices, waswillful, and carriedout in reckless disregard for a consumer's rights as set forth in
section 16811 of the FCRA, and further assumed an unjustifiably high risk ofharm.
29.
At all times pertinent hereto, Equifaxwas acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees whowere actingwithin the course and scope oftheir agency or employment,
and under the direct supervision and control of the Equifax herein.
V. Class Action Allegations
30.
Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action, pursuant to Rules 23(a) of
the FederalRules ofCivil Procedure, on behalf of the following Class: All persons in the State
of Oregonto whom, beginning five years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing
Page 8 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 8 of 12 Page ID#: 8
through theresolution of this action, in response to a dispute, Equifax sent a letter in theform of
the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A.
31.
The Class is sonumerous thatjoinder of allmembers is impracticable. Although the
precise number of Class members is known onlyto Equifax, Equifax handles thousands of
consumer disputes andreinvestigations ofpublic records information, andEquifax's uniform
practice andprocedure is to send form letters which misrepresent its reinvestigation activities
andfailed to provide required information. Accordingly, Plaintiffestimates that the classsize
numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands.
32.
There arequestions of lawand fact common to theClass thatpredominate over any
questions affecting onlyindividual Class members. Theprincipal question iswhether Equifax
violated theFCRA bymisrepresenting its reinvestigation activities, andfailed to provide
required information, when responding to a dispute it received from a consumer who disputed
theaccuracy of a public record itemthatEquifax wasreporting.
33.
Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims ofthe Class, which all arise from the same
operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.
34.
Plaintiffwill fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff is
committed to vigorously litigating thismatter andhasretained counsel experienced inhandling
class actions andclaims under theFCRA. Neither Plaintiffnorhis counsel has anyinterests
whichmightcause them not to vigorously pursue this claim.
Page 9 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 9 of 12 Page ID#: 9
35.
This action shouldbe maintained as a class actionbecause the prosecutionof separate
actionsby individualmembers of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual members whichwould establish incompatible standards
of conduct for the parties opposingthe Class, as well as a risk ofadjudicationswith respect to
individual members which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other
membersnot parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect
their interests.
36.
Whether a consumer was sent one ofEquifax's false reinvestigation response form letters
can be easily determined by a ministerial inspection ofEquifax's business records.
37.
A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy. The interest ofClass members in individually controlling the prosecution of
separate claims against Equifax is slight because the maximum statutory damages are limited to
between$100 and $1,000 under the FCRA. Management of the Class claims is likely to present
significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many individual claims. The identities of
the Classmembersmay be obtained from Equifax's records.
VI. Claim for Relief
38.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs.
Page 10 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 10 of 12 Page ID#: 10
39.
Equifaxwillfully failed to complywith the requirements of the FCRA, 15U.S.C. §
1681i.
40.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 168In, Equifax is liable to Plaintiff and all Class members for its
failure to comply withFCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, in anamount equal to the sumof (1)damages
of not less that $100and not more than $1,000per violation, (2) punitivedamages in an amount
to be determinedby the jury, (3) attorney fees and (4) costs.
VII. Jury Trial Demand
41.
Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
VIII. Prayer
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Equifax as follows:
a. An order certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules of
Civil Procedureand appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class;
b. An order declaring that Equifax's actions as described above are in violation of
the FCRA;
c. Statutory damages in the amount of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000
per violation per Class member, pursuant to 15U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(l);
d. Punitive damages to be determined by the jury, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1681n(a)(2);
e. Costs and Attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3); and
f. Such other relief as may be just and proper.
Page 11 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 11 of 12 Page ID#: 11
DATED this 2nd day ofMarch 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert S. Sola, OSB# 84454rssola@,msn.com(503) 295-6880(503) 291-9172 (FAX)Attorney for Plaintiff
Page 12 - CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT
Case 3:12-cv-00387-MO Document 1 Filed 03/02/12 Page 12 of 12 Page ID#: 12