Case Dismissed against EXP

I have posted this a lot before about my federal complaint against the Evil Exp. It was filed about 10 months and due to a "resolution" of the claim, which can't be discussed, the parties (dh and EXP) have mutually agreed to dismissal, which is now final.

Dh and I just had it with EXP and how they handle disputes. Dh and I just got fed up with dealing with them all the BS we believed they had done. I wrote the complaint for dh, and it alleged various violations of the FCRA in the complaint including:
refusal to investigate

refusal to investigate disputes

refusal to consider evidence

claiming to verify an account, that we didn't believe they verified

hiding a collection accounts

The complaint covers 5 separate accounts.

I'm not a lawyer, and take the complaint for what it's worth. It was enough to get the dh scheduled for a jury trial within 10 months of the first hearing.

 

Upon information and belief, and in good faith, Plaintiff xxx alleges as follows:

Preliminary Statement
1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ? 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.)
Jurisdiction and Venue
2. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ?) establishes federal jurisdiction for the Plaintiffâ??s cause of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681p and 28 U.S.C. §§1331. Venue lies in the xxxDivision of the California xxxDistrict Court as Plaintiffâ??s claims arose from acts of the Defendant perpetrated therein.
Parties
3. The Plaintiff, xxx, in propria persona status, is a resident of the state of California and the county of xxx, residing at California. Plaintiff is a â??consumerâ? as defined by the FCRA §1681a(c) of the FCRA.
4. The defendant, Experian Information Services, Inc. (hereafter referred to as â??Experianâ?) is an Ohio corporation, registered to do business in the state of California with its principal place of business at 475 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa California 92626.
5. Experian is both a â??personâ? and a â??consumer reporting agencyâ? as defined and contemplated under the FCRA.
Factual Allegations
6. On or about June 2, 2002, Plaintiff submitted a dispute to Experian by mail for a collection account reporting by I.C. System, Inc. The collection account clearly listed the original creditor as xxx Animal Hospital. The Plaintiff disputed the account and provided a copy of a letter signed by the original creditor, xxx Animal hospital, which stated Plaintiff had been incorrectly billed.
7. Experian responded to Plaintiffâ??s IC Systemâ??s account dispute by refusing to reinvestigate, claiming the item had previously been investigated.
8. On or about June 26, 2002, Plaintiff received a letter by I.C. System, Inc., stating they had requested, â??that any information our office may have forwarded to the credit reporting agencies regarding this account be deleted or removed from their record.â? The collection account was eventually deleted on or about July 26, 2002.
9. On or about June 2, 2002, the Plaintiff submitted a dispute by mail to Experian for a collection account reporting by Chase Receivables. The Plaintiff disputed the account and provided a copy of a letter from Chase Receivables stating: â??We have requested the major credit repositories to delete the above-mentioned account from your credit report.â?
10. On or about June 14, 2002, Experian responded to the Plaintiffâ??s Chase Receivables account dispute by not investigating, claiming the Plaintiff did not provide enough information to dispute the account.
11. Plaintiff submitted a similar dispute letter, accompanied with the same letter from Chase Receivables, to Equifax, a competing credit reporting agency. Equifax deleted the disputed account from Plaintiffâ??s credit profile within a week.
12. In June of 2002, Plaintiff again submitted a dispute to Experian regarding the Chase Receivables account, which was accepted for reinvestigation by Experian.
13. According to Plaintiffâ??s online subscription to Credit Expert, Experianâ??s online paid subscription to oneâ??s updated daily credit report, on the 31st day of the investigation, July 27, 2002, the status of the Chase Receivables account was changed to under investigation to â??verifiedâ? by defendant. Plaintiff was notified the Chase Receivables collection account would remain on his credit profile.
14. On or about July 27, 2002, Plaintiff called Chase Receivables to ask why they verified the collection account with Experian, and was told Chase Receivables did not verify the account, in fact, they had requested for the account to be deleted with the credit reporting agencies.
15. Plaintiff did not believe Experian verified the Chase Receivables account and intended to submit a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information, but the account was deleted sometime after August 12, 2002, without any further dispute from Plaintiff.
16. On or about June 17, 2002, Plaintiff disputed a tax lien showing on his credit report, claiming the California State Franchise Tax Board owed him money, submitting a copied check, a refund to the Plaintiff from the California State Franchise Tax Board. Plaintiff urged defendant to contact the California State Franchise Tax Board.
17. Defendant â??investigatedâ? Plaintiffâ??s dispute regarding the lien and updated the reporting to settled 06/02.
18. On July 3, 2002, Plaintiff requested a description of the procedure used to determining the accuracy and completeness of the state tax lien.
19. On or about August 12, 2002, defendant sent a letter to Plaintiffâ??s request for a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the state tax lien reported by the Orange County Recorder by referring Plaintiff to his credit report for â??update.â? However, the reporting of account remained the same as previously reported.
20. Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the state tax lien.
21. The Plaintiff has requested and received copies of his credit report from Experian, both by letters and an online subscription to Experianâ??s credit service.
22. Experian did not provide the Plaintiff complete copies of his credit report. Experian has hidden at least one known account from the Plaintiff, an account in his credit file listed as a collection account by American Agencies.
23. On or about July 13, 2002, the Plaintiff, via telephone, disputed the hidden file by American Agencies, and Experian placed the account under investigation.
24. On or about August 12, 2002, Plaintiff was informed by Experian they had investigated the American Agencies account and the account has been deleted from Plaintiffâ??s credit profile.
25. Prior to discovering the hidden American Agencies collection account on his Experian profile, Plaintiff believes

 

he had been intentionally harassed by American Agencies to induce him to pay for a collection account that belonged to his father. A collection account by American Agencies was deleted from Plaintiffâ??s credit profile with Trans Union, a competing credit reporting agency, on or about June 2002, when Plaintiff complained to Trans Union that American Agencies was placing a collection account on his credit profile that belonged to his father. This dispute was accompanied with an affidavit, and the collection account was deleted from Plaintiffâ??s Trans Union credit profile within about 15 days of the dispute.
26. It is unknown to the Plaintiff if the hidden account that he was unable to view was revealed to any of his creditors or in his applications to credit.
27. On or about June 7, 2002 the Plaintiff disputed inquiries showing on his credit report by mail.
28. In Plaintiffâ??s June letter, he informed defendant that American Agencies was â??intentionally harassing himâ? for an account American Agencies knew did not belong to Plaintiff and continued in his letter to request defendant to investigate the inquiry.
29. On or about July 11, 2002, Experian responded to the Plaintiffâ??s June dispute for inquiries by a) stating a record of â??Pacific Bellâ? was not found, and b) all inquiries are to remain on his report for two years under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
30. On or about July 13, 2002, the Plaintiff again disputed inquiries on his credit report with Experian by telephone.
31. Experian responded to the Plaintiffâ??s July phone inquiry dispute by refusing to investigate.
32. Experian justified one of the inquires the Plaintiff was disputing in his telephone conversation claiming he had an account with one of the creditors that initiated the inquiry, American Agencies. This account was a hidden file, an account that was not disclosed to Plaintiffâ??s in his credit profiles provided to him by the defendant both online and by mail.
33. The disputed inquiries are coded by the defendant as â??hardâ? inquiries and have caused damage to the Plaintiffâ??s credit score.
34. The inquiries the Plaintiff disputed are disclosed to those asking for a review of his credit history.
35. Both American Agencies and First Federal Bank informed the Plaintiff that they would request Experian to delete inquiries showing on the Plaintiffâ??s credit report to Experian.
36. Both inquiries from American Agency and First Federal Bank remain on the Plaintiffâ??s report, and Experian has refused to investigate.
37. On or about November 27, 2002, the Plaintiff mailed a dispute to Experian regarding an account in his credit profile reported by Providian.
38. In December of 2002, Experian responded to the Plaintiffâ??s November 26 dispute by a) refusing to investigate claiming the Plaintiff did not provide enough information to dispute the account and b) sending a letter defining the term â??paid in settlementâ?.
39. On or about December 17, 2002, the Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter to Experian regarding their response to his November 27, 2002 dispute. In the follow-up letter, the Plaintiff requested Experian to comply with his original dispute and reinvestigate the account, believing he did provide sufficient reason for Experian to investigate.
40. In December 2002, Experian responded to the Plaintiffâ??s letter stating they would not investigate.
41. On or about July 31, 2002, the Plaintiff applied for credit with Citibank and was denied credit from Citibank based on information contained in his Experian credit profile.
42. On or about July 31, 2002, the Plaintiff applied for credit with MBNA bank and was denied credit from MBNA based on information contained in his Experian credit profile.
43. On or about August 7, 2002, Plaintiff applied for a credit line increase with Orchard Bank and was denied a credit line increase based on information contained in his credit profile with Experian.
44. The Plaintiff applied for credit, a home equity loan with Wells Fargo on or about July 28, 2002, in which Experian disclosed erroneous information regarding Plaintiffâ??s credit to Wells Fargo.
45. As a direct result and proximate cause of Defendantâ??s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to humiliation, distress, embarrassment, and loss of opportunity.

CAUSES OF ACTION
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act-Count I

46. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
47. Experianâ??s refusal to conduct a reinvestigation regarding the IC Systems account disputed by Plaintiff was in violation of the FCRA §1681i.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act - Count II
48. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
49. Experianâ??s refusal to conduct a reinvestigation regarding the Chase Receivables account disputed by Plaintiff was in violation of the FCRA §1681i.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act - Count III
50. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
51. Defendant violated the FCRA in claiming to verify the Chase Receivables account, which Plaintiff believes was not verified.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act - Count IV
52. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
53. Experianâ??s refusal to investigate inquiries listed in Plaintiffâ??s credit report was in violation of the FCRA §1681i.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act- Count V
54. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
55. Defendants failure to respond to Plaintiffâ??s request for a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information relating to the state tax lien was in violation of the FCRA.

Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act- Count VI
56. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
57. Experian repeatedly failed to provide Plaintiff with a full disclosure of all files in his credit profile maintained by them, specifically, a collection account by American Agencies, in violation of the FCRA §1681g
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act- Count VII
58. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
59. Experianâ??s refusal to conduct a reinvestigation regarding the Providian account disputed by Plaintiff was in violation of the FCRA §1681i.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act- Count VIII
60. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
61. Experian has failed to adopt and follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiffâ??s consumer credit and other personal information as required by the FCRA, which it compiled, used, manipulated, in order to prepare consumer reports, credit scores, risk factor/denial codes, and other economic and prediction data evaluation.

Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment be entered against defendant for:
a) Actual damages in an amount to be shown at trial;
b) Statutory damages of $1,000 for each willful violation of the FCRA that defendant, has committed pursuant to FCRA §1681n; or alternatively statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of the FCRA that defendant, has committed pursuant to FCRA §1681o
c) Punitive damages pursuant to FCRA §1681n;
d) Permanent injunctive relief restraining defendant from
further reporting of inaccurate and erroneous adverse
information in his credit profile.
e) Costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided by the
FCRA.
f) Any other remedy as may be just and proper

 

Sorry crowmon, I can't discuss anything other than it has been dismissed due to a "resolution."

I am glad I am sued them though.

My opinions on suing EXP for deletions, only, don't, at least not without a strong case. It wasn't why I sued them, I was angry that EXP let American Agencies, one of their "clients" do whatever they wanted to do and had a pattern of refusing to consider evidence and reinvestigate.

A lot of the discussions focused on American Agenices.

Most of the accounts in my complaint had already been deleted by the time I sued EXP, but at the time I needed credit, a home loan and a cc's, I was denied for reasons I believe were related to the EXP report.