Is there anything I should change to make this better? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF XXXXXXXX xxxxxxx, PLAINTIFF, Vs. COMPLAINT xxxxxx DEFENDANT. The PLAINTIFF, xxxxxxx, 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 xxxxxxx, County of xxxx, residing at xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx, xx xxxxxx. Plaintiffs Social Security Number is xxx-xx-xxxx. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx is a foreign corporation operating and existing under the laws of xxxxxxx, with its principal place of business at xxxx, xxxxxx xx, xxxxx Cause(s) of Action 3. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ?) establishes federal jurisdiction for the Plaintiffâ??s Cause of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p while 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3) provides a cause of action against Defendant for providing information to a consumer-reporting agency without including such notice to the consumer-reporting agency that Plaintiff has disputed the information with the Defendant. Defendant, xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx, xxx 4. On November 22, 2002 Plaintiff sent a dispute to Trans Union, a consumer-reporting agency, wherein Plaintiff challenged the accuracy of several 30 days past due notations Defendant had placed on Plaintiffâ??s file (Exhibit â??Aâ?). 5. On December 6, 2002 Plaintiff sent another dispute to a consumer reporting agency, xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, an affiliate of Equifax Information Services, Inc., challenging the accuracy of several 30 past due notations Defendant had placed on Plaintiffs file (Exhibit â??Bâ?). 6. On December 6, 2002 Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant wherein Plaintiff stated that he was in full dispute of the completeness and accuracy of all information that Defendant was providing to the consumer reporting agencies for account #xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Exhibit â??Câ?). 7. On December 22, 2002 Trans Union completed its investigation of Plaintiffâ??s dispute and verified the information that Defendant had previously reported (Exhibit â??Dâ?). Plaintiff contends that Defendant did furnish information to a consumer reporting agency without including notice that such information was disputed by Plaintiff in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3) which states: (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. 8. On December 27, Equifax completed its investigation of Plaintiffâ??s dispute and verified the information that Plaintiff had previously disputed. Plaintiff contends that Defendant repeatedly did furnish information to a consumer-reporting agency without including notice that Plaintiff disputed such information in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(4) Civil Penalties 9. Plaintiff contends statutory damages of $1,000.00 for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that Defendant has committed are appropriate. 8. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of immediate and permanent correction of Plaintiffâ??s consumer reporting agency files as pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(4). 9. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages as each of the Defendantâ??s actions towards Plaintiff was malicious and Defendant knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendantâ??s actions constitute a wanton and gross disregard for the law. Plaintiff requests punitive damages in the amount of $5,000.00. 10. Plaintiff hereby seeks trial by jury of any and all claims properly cognizable thereby. WHEREFOR, the Plaintiff respectfully requests a Judgment of this Court, awarding him economic, statutory and punitive damages all as provided by law, attorneyâ??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 January 7, 2002 ______________________ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xx xxxxxxx xxx-xxx-xxxx
The beauty of federal court is you do not have to be very detailed. In you complaint you want to allege violations of the FCRA, but you want to be somewhat vague. Also, I would not qoute any of the provisions of the FCRA in your complaint/petition. You will want to do that in your briefs to the court later on. Some federal judges take offense to a non-lawyer telling them what the law is. JUst my 2¢ though.
I think its fine, except I don't think I would put the specific amount you are requesting for statutory and punitive damages. You aren't asking for enough to give it any teeth, IYKWIM. I do think they will want to see actual damages, though. L
numbering 9 8 9 10 I'd do it this way... 9. Plaintiff contends statutory damages of $1,000.00 for willful noncompliance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681n that Defendant has committed are appropriate. 10. Plaintiff contends statutory damages of $1,000.00 for negligent noncompliance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681o that Defendant has committed are appropriate. The fcra divides negligent and willful noncompliance. If you just leave willful they can claim error and get out of it with "it was negligent noncompliance and this plaintiff didn't sue for that".... let the judge/jury decide if it's willful or negligent... Lizardking posted a great copy of a lawsuit he filed. You might want to look at it and copy a bit You also get to atty fees off negligent noncompliance and you can increase this request if you sustained actual damages that exceed 1k
§ 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court. (b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater. (c) Attorney's fees. Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper. § 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o] (a) In general. 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 in an amount equal to the sum of (1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; (2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court. (b) Attorney's fees. On a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.
My search function is not working can someone please post the link to LizardKing's complaint. i would greatly appreciate it.
The diffrence between willful and negligent violations are of course one provides for statutory damages and the other provides only for actual damages. I guess I could sue for both but the $64,000 question is how the heck do you argue actual damages for not marking the account as in dispute?
if you someone other than you saw your credit report during the time period after the CA signed for your dispute and validation letter, and before the CA validated (if they did). basically someone other than you had to see the negative not in dispute after you disputed it. --- what about 'continued collection activity' from FDCPA? -- good luck, let us know what happens.
Re: Re: Critique my lawsuit... To clarify, regarding my 'someone has a brain' remark, I posted it when the board was down and noticed some people had gotten around the data block (unlike ole Yosemite 'Tex! lol). I was paying them a compliment! Nothing derogatory was intended on the content of the posters of this thread. If you are still lost, I guess you had to be there.
spyguyjim>>>you are too funny. Better watch your back though, I think begntexas is looking for a showdown. Of course, it may take him some time...... BANG BANG
duck season? Only Elmer Fudd hunts during duck season ok I see your link is working now....you really did mean what I thought you did. sneaky sneaky sneaky
"He don't know me verwy well, do he." I'm sure this is just the beginning....I'll figure out which character is most like him soon enough.
Re: Re: Critique my lawsuit... I can tell you that you guys need a lot more research into that business of attorney's fees. In Dunleavy v. Hatfield & Hatfield the Pinellas County, Florida Apellate court ruled that The prevailing view of law in this area is unfavorable to the award of attorneyâ??s fees to attorneys acting pro se, and further leaves this issue to the discretion of the court. See American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Nuell, Baron & Polsky, 654 So.2d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(citing Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991)(stating that a rule that authorizes awards of counsel fees to pro se litigants would create a disincentive to employ counsel whenever such a plaintiff considered himself competent to litigate on his own behalf; the statutory policy of furthering the successful prosecution of meritorious claims is better served by a rule that creates an incentive to retain counsel in every such case); see also Elliot v. Pallotti, 654 So.2d 1300, 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(ruling that the determination of attorneyâ??s fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court). The record also shows that the Appellant did not plead attorneyâ??s fees. See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835, 837 (Fla. 1991)(finding that a claim for attorneyâ??s fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled). Additionally, and as a final point, this Court would remind the Appellant, especially as an attorney who asserts he has â??successfullyâ? obtained writs of garnishment on four previous occasions, to abide by the statutory and case law of this State. See Carr v. Grace, 321 So.2d 618, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)(holding that Appellantâ??s self-representation did not relieve her of the obligation to comply with any appropriate rules of the court and rules of civil procedure); see also Fla. Stat. §454.18(2000)(stating that â??any personâ?¦may conduct his or her own cause in any court of this stateâ?¦subject to the lawful rules and discipline of such courtâ?¦â?). In yet another case the court ruled that attorney fees must be awarded prevailing pro se litigants on the same basis as practicing attorneys and to deny them was judicial error. I'm looking for that case and it should not be difficult to find.
