robert s. sola nu30emfir'121564uoc«pmedia.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/equifax...

#

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

- 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.



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



robert s. sola nu30emfir'121564uoc«pmedia.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/equifax...

Documents