JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DENISE CHAVEZ

[insert address]

[insert contact]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE CHAVEZ,Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND, TRANS UNION, LLC,Defendants.	Case No.: 5:20-cv-02282 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, AND CALIFORNIA’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, CIVIL CODE § 1798.92 *ET SEQ.* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Denise Chavez (“Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Chavez”) brings this Complaint against Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) (collectively the “Defendants”) for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States Congress has found that the banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. As such, Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”) to insure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system and protect consumer privacy. The FCRA seeks to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy because consumer reporting agencies have assumed such a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. The FCRA also imposes duties on the sources that provide credit information to credit reporting agencies, otherwise known as “furnishers.”
The purpose of the FCRA is to require consumer reporting agencies to “adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (emphasis added). In furtherance of its underlying purposes, the FCRA sets out requirements and obligations that consumer reporting agencies, § 1681i, and their furnishers of information, § 1681s-2(b), must follow when consumers dispute the accuracy of the information reported in their credit reports.
This case concerns Defendants’ reporting of multiple, fraudulent student loan accounts on Plaintiff’s credit reports, which were opened by identity thieves using Plaintiff’s personal, private information. Plaintiff never graduated from high school and has never applied for a student loan.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union for failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of her credit reports in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and for their failure to fulfill their reinvestigation duties in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint alleges violations of the statute cited in its entirety.
Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendants took place in the State of California.

Any violations by each Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations.
Unless otherwise indicated, the use of a Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers of

Defendant’s named.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of Adelanto, County of San Bernardino, California, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(c); and, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
Plaintiff is a “Victim of Identity Theft” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code 1798.82(d).
Defendant Department of Education is an executive agency of the United States government.
Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) is a foreign limited liability company with a principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia, and is authorized to do business in the State of California, including the Central District.

Equifax is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). Equifax is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties. Equifax is also a “consumer credit reporting agency” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(d) and a “person” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(j).

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) is a foreign limited liability company with a principal place of business located in Costa Mesa, California, and is authorized to do business in the State of California, including the Central District.

Experian is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). Experian is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties. Experian is also a “consumer credit reporting agency” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(d) and a “person” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(j).

Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) is a foreign limited liability company with a principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois, and is authorized to do business in the State of California, including the Central District.
Trans Union is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). Trans Union is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties. Trans Union is also a “consumer credit reporting agency” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(d) and a “person” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(j).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction of this Court arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.
This action arises out of Defendants’ respective violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”).
Because Defendants conduct business within the State of California, personal jurisdiction is established.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 for the following reasons: (i) both Plaintiff and Experian reside in this judicial district; (ii) the conduct complained of herein occurred within this judicial district; and, (iii) Defendants conducted business within this judicial district at all times relevant hereto.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

An Identity Thief Opens a Fraudulent Student Loan Account in Plaintiff’s

Name with the University of Phoenix

At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff is an individual residing within the State of California.

In or around August 2013, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and without Plaintiff’s consent, an imposter opened two student loan accounts with the University of Phoenix (the “U of P Loans”) and executed a Master Promissory Note.

In completing the Master Promissory Note, the imposter used Plaintiff’s email address, name, date of birth, and Social Security number. However, the imposter used an address in Tucker, Georgia, which Plaintiff has never lived at or ever been associated with; a telephone number issued in Atlanta, Georgia, which Plaintiff has never used or ever been associated with; and listed two references which Plaintiff has never been related to or associated with, Donna Alford, allegedly Plaintiff’s mother-in-law residing in Lithonia, Georgia, and Ann Minion, allegedly Plaintiff’s cousin residing in Decatur, Georgia.
The two fraudulent U of P Loans were originated in or about August and October 2013 in the amounts of $1,153.00 and $3,039.00.

The U of P Loans are believed to have been utilized by the imposter to attend the University of Phoenix, an online undergraduate university.

The $1,153.00 Loan is believed to have been funded by the United States Department of Education (“DoE”).

The $3,039.00 Loan was funded by the University of Phoenix.

Plaintiff never even graduated from high school and, consequently, never sought such financial aid from the University of Phoenix for postsecondary education.
At some point in time after the imposter opened the fraudulent U of P Loans, the University of Phoenix and DoE furnished credit history information

regarding the accounts to the national credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union (the “Credit Bureaus”).

An Identity Thief Opens a Fraudulent Student Loan Account in Plaintiff’s Name with Park University

In or around January 2014, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and without Plaintiff’s consent, an imposter opened another student loan account with Park University (“the PU Loan”) and executed a Master Promissory Note.
In completing the Master Promissory Note, the imposter used Plaintiff’s email address, name, date of birth, and Social Security number. However, the imposter once again used an address in Tucker, Georgia, which Plaintiff has never lived at or ever been associated with; a different telephone number also issued in Atlanta, Georgia, which Plaintiff has never used or ever been associated with; and listed the same two references which Plaintiff has never been related to or associated with, Donna Alford, allegedly Plaintiff’s mother-in-law residing in Lithonia, Georgia, and Ann Minion, allegedly Plaintiff’s cousin residing in Decatur, Georgia.
The fraudulent PU Loan was originated in or about January 2014 in the amount of $1,175.00.
The PU Loan is believed to have been utilized by the imposter to attend Park University, a private liberal arts University located in Parkville, Missouri.
The $1,175.00 Loan was funded by the DoE/Great Lakes Educational Loan Services Inc (“GLELSI”).
Plaintiff never even graduated from high school and, consequently, never sought such financial aid from Park University for postsecondary education.
At some point in time after the imposter opened the fraudulent PU Loan, the DoE/GLELSI furnished credit history information regarding the account to the national credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union (the “Credit Bureaus”).

Plaintiff’s Disputes with the Universities

Upon discovering that she was the victim of identity theft, Plaintiff contacted both Universities to directly dispute the student loans.
Plaintiff explained to representatives of the two Universities that she was the victim of identity theft, that she never even completed high school let alone applied for student loans, and requested that both Universities absolve her of responsibility for the three student loans fraudulently opened in her name.
Despite these explicit disputes, the University of Phoenix and Park University continued to hold Plaintiff responsible for the fraudulent debts.

Bank of America Closes Plaintiff’s Checking Account Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Credit Reports

On or about July 21, 2017, Plaintiff received mail correspondence from Bank of America informing her that it was closing her checking account due to information obtained in her credit reports.
Plaintiff, shocked and surprised, called Bank of America to inquire what about her credit reports would lead it to randomly close her checking account. Bank of America failed to provide Plaintiff a definitive answer.

Target Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Equifax Credit Report

On or about September 8, 2017, Plaintiff applied for a retail credit card at Target because she was having trouble supporting her family, which includes her husband and four young children.
In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff received mail correspondence informing her that her credit application had been denied based on the contents of her Equifax credit report.

Capital One Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Equifax Credit Report

On or about May 25, 2018, Plaintiff applied for a Capital One credit card.
In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff received mail correspondence informing her that her credit application had been denied based on the contents of her Equifax credit report.
Plaintiff’s Tax Refunds are garnished to repay the Fraudulent Student Loan
On or about [insert date], Plaintiff’s tax refund for the period of [insert tax period] was garnished by DoE to repay the Fraudulent Student Loan despite the Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to notify the Defendants that the loan is the result of a identity theft.
Plaintiff was denied the right to receive, retain and enjoy the tax refund in the amount of [insert amount].

Plaintiff Disputes with the Credit Bureaus in or Around July 2018

After suffering multiple credit denials, Plaintiff obtained her credit reports, discovered the three derogatory student loan accounts reporting, and began disputing with the Credit Bureaus.
In or around July 2018, Plaintiff contacted the Credit Bureaus by phone to dispute the fraudulent, derogatory student loan accounts reporting on her credit reports.
Plaintiff explained to the Credit Bureaus’ representatives that she was a victim of identity theft and that she was calling to dispute the accuracy of three student loan accounts reporting on her credit reports: two accounts reported by the Department of Education (“DoE”) (Acct. Nos. 2496**** and 224963120579****), and one account reported by the University of Phoenix (“U of P”) (Acct. No. 905030****) (collectively, “the disputed accounts”).

The Consumer Reporting Agencies’ Method for Considering Consumer Credit Report Disputes

The credit industry has constructed a method of numeric-alpha codes for considering consumer credit report disputes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(D).
Consumer reporting agencies Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and Innovis have thus created the Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting, or e-OSCAR, as the credit industries’ standard of performance. e-OSCAR allows data furnishers to create and respond to disputes initiated by consumers by routing credit reporting agency-created prompts for automated consumer dispute verifications to the appropriate data furnishers. e-OSCAR utilizes a numeric-alpha language specific to the credit reporting industry.
That lexicon or unique language is commonly referred to in the credit reporting industry as “Metro II.” It is also known industry wide as the CDIA’s “Credit Reporting Resource Guide.”
Metro II is driven by numeric codes that translate into specific alpha representations about consumers’ creditworthiness and character that will ultimately appear on credit reports issued to third parties who make credit, insurance, rental, and employment decisions regarding consumers.
Metro II codes are used on an industry wide form known within the credit industry as an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) electronic form.
The ACDVs have many fields in their body for use in effecting thorough and complete communications between data furnishers and the credit reporting agencies.
These ACDV “fields” have various titles for the many substantive areas into which the Metro II codes can be entered.

The Credit Bureaus’ Responses to Plaintiff’s July 2018 Disputes

In or about July 2018, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE and U of P verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
On or about August 18, 2018, Trans Union completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE and U of P’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Trans Union stated “VERIFIED AS ACCURATE AND UPDATED. The disputed item(s) was verified as accurate; however, other information has also changed.” Trans Union failed to remove the disputed accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report.
In or about July 2018, Experian sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE and U of P verified for Experian that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
In or about August 2018, Experian completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE and U of P’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Experian stated “[t]he company that reported the information has certified to Experian that the information is accurate. These items were not changed as a result of our processing of your dispute.” Experian failed to remove the disputed accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Experian credit report.
In or about July 2018, Equifax sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE and U of P verified for Equifax that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
In or about August 2018, Equifax completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE and U of P’s verification of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Equifax stated “[w]e verified that this item belongs to you. We have verified that this item has been reported correctly.” Equifax failed to remove the disputed accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report.

Dish Network Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Equifax Credit Report

On or about September 4, 2018, Plaintiff applied for credit with Dish Network to open a cable television account.
In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff received mail correspondence informing her that her credit application had been denied based on the contents of her Equifax credit report.

WebBank/Fingerhut Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Credit Reports

On or about September 20, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a credit application for the WebBank/Fingerhut Advantage Revolving Credit Account and WebBank/Fingerhut FreshStart Closed End Installment Loan.
In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff received mail correspondence informing her that her credit applications had been denied based on credit history as reported by SageStream.

Plaintiff Files a Second Dispute with Trans Union in or Around September 2018

In September 2018, after suffering multiple additional credit denials, Plaintiff contacted Trans Union by phone to dispute the fraudulent, derogatory student loan accounts that continued to be reported on her credit report.
Plaintiff explained to the Trans Union representative that she was a victim of identity theft and that she was calling to dispute the accuracy of three student loan accounts reporting on her credit reports: two accounts reported by the Department of Education (“DoE”) (Acct. Nos. 2496**** and 224963120579****), and one account reported by the University of Phoenix (“U of P”) (Acct. No. 905030****) (collectively, “the disputed accounts”).

Trans Union’s Response to Plaintiff’s September 2018 Dispute

In or about September 2018, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE and U of P verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
On or about October 10, 2018, Trans Union completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE and U of P’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Trans Union stated “VERIFIED AS ACCURATE AND UPDATED. The disputed item(s) was verified as accurate; however, other information has also changed.” Trans Union failed to remove the disputed accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report.

Chase Bank Denies Plaintiff Credit Due to the Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Credit Reports

On or about November 22, 2018, Plaintiff applied for a credit card with Chase Bank.
In the weeks that followed, Plaintiff received mail correspondence informing her that her credit application had been denied based on the contents of her Experian credit report.

Plaintiff Files a Complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)

On or about November 30, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an online Complaint with the CFPB pleading for help to get the Credit Bureaus to remove the fraudulent student loan accounts from her credit reports so that she could once again benefit from her good name and credit rating.
On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff received a written response to her Complaint from the CFPB informing her to contact the Credit Bureaus to resolve the issue.

Plaintiff Files a Third Dispute with Trans Union in or Around January 2019

In or about January 2019, after suffering additional credit denials, Plaintiff contacted Trans Union via internet to dispute the fraudulent, derogatory student loan accounts that continued to be reported on her credit report.
Plaintiff once again explained to Trans Union that she was a victim of identity theft and that she was calling to dispute the accuracy of three student loan accounts reporting on her credit reports: two accounts reported by the Department of Education (“DoE”) (Acct. Nos. 2496**** and 224963120579****), and one account reported by the University of Phoenix (“U of P”) (Acct. No. 905030****) (collectively, “the disputed accounts”).

Trans Union’s Response to Plaintiff’s January 2019 Dispute

In or about January 2019, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
On or about February 22, 2019, Trans Union completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Trans Union stated “VERIFIED AS ACCURATE AND UPDATED. The disputed item(s) was verified as accurate; however, other information has also changed.” Trans Union failed to remove the disputed DoE accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report. However, Trans Union did remove the U of P account from Plaintiff’s credit report.

Plaintiff Files a Police Report with the San Bernardino Police Department in February 2019

On or about February 12, 2019, Plaintiff contacted the San Bernardino Police Department and filed a Police Report regarding the identity theft she had experienced, which was assigned Report Number 2019-03000502.
The Police Report noted that more than $6,000.00 in student loan debt had been fraudulently obtained by an imposter using Plaintiff’s name, date of birth, and Social Security number.

Plaintiff Submits Identity Theft Affidavit to the University of Phoenix, the Department of Education, and the CFPB in April 2019

In or about early April 2019, Plaintiff contacted the U of P once again by phone to dispute the fraudulent student loan account that was opened in her name by an imposter. Plaintiff explained in detail why the student loan account did not belong to her and that it was still reporting on her credit reports and causing significant harm to her credit scores.
A few days later the U of P sent Plaintiff an ID Theft Affidavit, which Plaintiff promptly completed.
The ID Theft Affidavit noted Plaintiff’s address; provided signature samples; identified the potential imposters as E. Nunez and Y. Pacheco; explained the basis for Plaintiff’s belief that she was the victim of identity theft; and was notarized.
Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted additional disputes with supporting documentation, including her Police Report and ID Theft Affidavit, to the U of P, DoE, and CFPB.
Plaintiff’s CFPB dispute also provided abundant detail and supporting documentation; however, said dispute was cursorily rejected as well.

Plaintiff Disputes with the Department of Education in 2019

At some point during 2019, Plaintiff contacted the DoE by phone to dispute the fraudulent student loan accounts that were opened in her name by an imposter. Plaintiff explained in detail why the student loan accounts did not belong to her, specifically mentioning that she never even finished high school, and that they were still reporting on her credit reports and causing significant harm to her credit scores.
The DoE representative recommended that Plaintiff visit Parchment.com to obtain a copy of her high school transcript as proof that she never graduated from high school and could not have possibly applied for student loans.
Plaintiff also demanded additional information about the two loans and requested all of the underlying records and paperwork from when they were originated. The DoE representative told Plaintiff that she could only view the loan information on studentaid.ed.gov, and that she would need to create an account.
Because Plaintiff did not actually take out the two student loans, she did not know the login ID or password to access the information on studentaid.ed.gov. Consequently, the DoE representative assisted Plaintiff with creating a new login ID and password so that she could gain access to the account information.
Plaintiff eventually gained access to the Promissory Notes associated with the fraudulent student loans online via the National Student Loan Data System (“NSLDS”).
While the Promissory Notes contained Plaintiff’s name, birthdate, and Social Security number, they also contained significant information that did not belong to Plaintiff.
For example, the Promissory Notes listed Plaintiff’s home address as being in Tucker, Georgia.
Plaintiff has never lived in the State of Georgia nor in any state outside of the State of California.
The Promissory Notes also listed a telephone number with an area code from the State of Georgia, which Plaintiff has never utilized.
Moreover, the Promissory Notes listed Ann Minion (“Ms. Minion”) and Donna Alford (“Ms. Alford”) as references. Ms. Minion is alleged to be Plaintiff’s cousin and Ms. Alford is alleged to be Plaintiff’s mother-in-law. It is also alleged that both Ms. Minion and Ms. Alford reside in the State of Georgia.
Plaintiff; however, is not related to either of these individuals; has never met either of these individuals; and has never listed either of these individuals as references on any application, at any time, for any purpose.
Since Plaintiff’s direct disputes with the University of Phoenix and DoE were ultimately unsuccessful, Plaintiff then submitted multiple disputes to each of the Credit Bureaus.
The University of Phoenix eventually honored Plaintiff’s fraud disputes and suppressed its reporting of the fraudulent student loan account.
The DoE; however, continued to furnish credit history regarding the fraudulent disputed accounts to the Credit Bureaus. Such credit information was the subject of multiple disputes by Plaintiff thereafter.

Plaintiff Disputes with the Credit Bureaus in January 2020

After suffering additional credit denials, Plaintiff obtained her credit reports near the end of 2019 and discovered the three derogatory student loan accounts were still reporting on her credit reports.
On January 15, 2020, unsatisfied with the results of her numerous previous disputes, Plaintiff mailed a written dispute via certified mail to all three of the Credit Bureaus, disputing the inaccurate and fraudulent student loan accounts. Specifically, Plaintiff’s disputes stated as follows:

Items/Accounts in Dispute

US DEPT. OF EDUCATION #2496….

Date opened: Oct 2013

Recent Balance: Not reported

Status: Paid, Closed

Type: Education

Original Creditor: DIRECT LOANS

APOLLO/UNIV OF PHOENIX #905030….

Date opened: Aug 2013

Recent Balance: $3,039 as of Apr 2019

Status: Account charged off. $3.039 written off. $3,039 past due as of Apr 2019.

Type: Unsecured

US DEPT. OF ED/GLELSI #224963120579….

Date opened: Oct 2013

Recent Balance: Not reported

Status: Transferred, closed

Type: Education

Reason for Correction

I am disputing the accuracy of these three tradelines on my credit report. None of these student loans belong to me. I was a victim of identity theft in 2012 and someone opened these three student loans using my name, date of birth, and Social Security number. I never even made it past the 9^th grade or graduated from high

school so there is no way that these student loans could have possibly been opened by me.

Enclosed is a copy of the police report I filed with the San Bernardino Police Department. The police report supports the fact that I never made it past the 9^th grade and that I am a victim of identity theft.

Also enclosed is a copy of my Identity Theft Affidavit, which explains that I am a victim of identity theft and that my personal identification documents were stolen on or about January 1, 2012, over a year before these student loans were opened by someone using my personal identification information.

Also enclosed are copies of the Promissory Notes for two of the student loans fraudulently opened in my name through Park University and the University of Phoenix. There is information in both Promissory Notes establishing that I did not take out either of these student loans:

My Driver’s License State and No. was not included;

The ID thief listed an address I have never lived at (2301 Lawrenceville Hwy, Tucker, GA 30084);

The Area Code/Telephone No. listed is for Atlanta, GA, and I have never had an Atlanta area code;

I have no relationship with the references listed (Ann Minion and Donna Alford) and have never even heard of these two people;

I never attended or received any services from Park University; and

I never attended or received any services from the University of Phoenix.

To be clear, the disputed student loan tradelines resulted from identity theft. Thus, I am requesting that the tradelines be deleted immediately as they are negatively

affecting my credit score and making it difficult to obtain credit. Please reinvestigate this matter, review the attached documents, and delete the disputed tradelines as soon as possible. Enclosed is a copy of my Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union credit reports where I have highlighted the inaccurate tradelines that I am requesting be deleted.

The Credit Bureaus’ Responses to Plaintiff’s January 2020 Disputes

In January 2020, Equifax sent ACDVs to the DoE (Equifax was no longer reporting the U of P account).
The DoE verified for Equifax that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
On January 24, 2020, Equifax completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE’s verification of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Equifax stated “[w]e verified that th[e]s[e] item[s] belong[] to you.” Equifax failed to remove the disputed DoE accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report.
In or about January 2020, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE (Trans Union was no longer reporting the U of P account).
The DoE verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
Furthermore, the Credit Bureaus alleged plaintiff’s credit score would still have suffered with or without the student loans and that any recovery would only come about if the Plaintiff were to earn approximately $100,000.
On or about February 6, 2020, Trans Union completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Trans Union stated in regard to Acct. No. 2496…: “DELETED: the disputed item(s) was removed from your credit report.” Trans Union stated in regard to Acct. No. #224963120579….:“VERIFIED AS ACCURATE AND UPDATED. The disputed item(s) was verified as accurate; however, other information has also changed.” Trans Union failed to remove one of the two disputed accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Trans Union credit report.
In or about February 2020, Experian sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
The DoE and U of P verified for Experian that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
On or about February 22, 2020, Experian completed its reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, which consisted of nothing more than parroting the DoE and U of P’s verifications of the disputed accounts and returned the results of its 15 U.S.C. § 1681i dispute reinvestigation. Experian stated “IF ACCOUNT WAS OPENED AS A RESULT OF IDENTITY THEFT, THE CREDIT GRANTOR MAY NOT KNOW HOW TO CONTACT YOU TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. THE CREDIT GRANTOR REQUESTS THAT YOU CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY 800-621-3115.” Thereafter, Experian failed to remove the disputed DoE accounts, which continued to appear on Plaintiff’s Experian credit report.
The Credit Bureaus did not provide notice to Plaintiff that Plaintiff’s dispute was “frivolous or irrelevant,” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3).
Defendants’ investigations were unreasonable.
More specifically, the Credit Bureaus should have determined from Plaintiff’s formal dispute, that the information being reported was inaccurate and materially misleading since Plaintiff provided information that conclusively established that Plaintiff did not open the disputed student loan accounts.
The Credit Bureaus’ failure to contact Plaintiff or the San Bernardino Police Department to obtain additional information, if needed, or either the University of Phoenix or Park University to determine if Plaintiff had in fact enrolled in either university, was unreasonable.
Instead, the Credit Bureaus would suggest to the Plaintiff that the dispute cannot be settled, and that with or without the reports that are the subject of this action, the Plaintiff would credit score would still have suffered, which unsolicited information is contrary to the Plaintiff’s demonstrated timely repayment history.
Plaintiff’s continued efforts to correct Defendants’ erroneous and derogatory reporting via dispute were fruitless.
The Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
The Defendants also failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit reports as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
As a standard practice, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union do not conduct independent investigations in response to consumer disputes. Instead, they merely parrot the response of the furnisher despite numerous court decisions admonishing this practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (“The ‘grave responsibilit[y]’ imposed by § 1681i(a) must consist of something more than merely parroting information received from other sources. Therefore, a ‘reinvestigation’ that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.”); Apodaca v. Discover Fin. Servs., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1230–31 (D.N.M. 2006) (noting that credit reporting agencies may not rely on automated procedures that make only superficial inquiries once the consumer has notified it that information is disputed); Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2008 WL 4934047, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2008).
Consistent with their standard policies and procedures, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union automatically generated their “investigation” results once the furnisher, the Department of Education and the University of Phoenix, provided their responses to Plaintiff’s disputes, verifying the fraudulent accounts as accurate and belonging to Plaintiff, and no employee from any of the credit reporting agencies took any additional steps to review Plaintiff’s documentation after the furnishers provided their responses to Plaintiff’s numerous disputes.
Instead, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union blindly accepted the DoE and U of P’s incomplete version of the facts and continued to report the inaccurate, derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union continue the practice of parroting the response from furnishers even though they have been repeatedly sued for failing to conduct reasonable investigations as required by the FCRA.
Defendants do not intend to modify their dispute-processing procedures because doing so would drastically increase their operating expenses.
Instead, Defendants intentionally choose not to comply with the FCRA to lower their costs. Accordingly, Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are willful.
Defendants’ continued inaccurate reporting of the derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports in light of Defendants’ knowledge of the actual errors was willful.
Defendants’ continued inaccurate reporting of the derogatory information on Plaintiff’s credit reports in light of Defendants’ knowledge of the actual errors was reckless.
Defendants’ failure to correct the previously admitted inaccuracies on Plaintiff’s credit reports was intentional and in reckless disregard of Defendants’ duty to refrain from reporting inaccurate information.
Accordingly, Defendants willfully and negligently failed to comply with their respective duties to reasonably investigate Plaintiff’s dispute.
Defendants’ inaccurate and negative reporting damaged Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.
Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiff emotional distress.
Plaintiff has spent countless hours disputing this inaccurate information with Defendants in an attempt to provide any and all information needed for the investigations.
While Plaintiff was thorough in her disputes at all times, each Defendant merely responded with form letters that failed to take into account any of the specifics identified in Plaintiff’s disputes.
Plaintiff’s anxiety; frustration; stress; lack of sleep; nervousness; anger; and, embarrassment continues to this day because these fraudulent, derogatory student loans accounts mischaracterize Plaintiff as someone that avoids paying her financial obligations, significantly harming her credit scores.
Despite Plaintiff’s repeated attempts, Defendants continue to report invalid debts on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful action and inaction, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to, reviewing credit reports, preparing and mailing dispute letters, waiting on the telephone, attorneys’ fees, loss of credit, loss of ability to purchase and benefit from credit, increased costs for credit, mental and emotional pain and anguish, and humiliation and embarrassment of credit denials. Plaintiff has further spent countless hours and suffered pecuniary loss in attempting to correct Defendants’ inaccurate and derogatory information, without success.
Based upon the discussion above, Plaintiff contends that punitive damages are available to Plaintiff.
By intentionally reporting continuing obligations, the Credit Bureaus acted in conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
To report an ongoing obligation despite the fraudulent nature of these accounts shows that Defendants took action involving an unjustifiably high risk of harm that was either known or so obvious that it should be known.
This inaccurate credit reporting has caused Plaintiff to receive credit denials from Target; Capital One; Chase; Dish Network; WebBank/Fingerhut; and others.
The inaccurate credit reporting has also precluded Plaintiff from obtaining employment with Uber; Lyft; and, a Staffing Agency.
This inability to obtain credit or secure employment as a result of the fraudulent credit reporting has severely impacted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is being punished each and every day because an imposter chose to steal her identity.
These issues have grinded Plaintiff’s life to a halt since the Credit Bureaus have refused to allow Plaintiff to clear her name.
Since Plaintiff’s efforts to be absolved of the fraudulent debts were unsuccessful, Plaintiff was required to bring this action to finally resolve
Plaintiff’s remaining disputes.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681X (FCRA)

[AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS]

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FCRA.
As a result of each and every negligent violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1); and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(2), from each Defendant.
As a result of each and every willful violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 and such amount as the court may allow, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A); punitive damages as the court may allow, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2); and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3) from each Defendant.
COUNT II
(Negligent Noncompliance with FCRA—Against Trans Union, Equifax and Experian)
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
Against Trans Union, Equifax and Experian negligently failed to comply with the requirements of FCRA by:
failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681e(b);
failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681b(a); and
failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681g.
As a result of defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of FCRA, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, actual damages including lost opportunity to receive credit, increased cost for credit, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress for which he seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to 15 USC §1681o(a).

COUNT III

(Willful Noncompliance with FCRA—Against Trans Union, Equifax and Experian)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
Against Trans Union, Equifax and Experian negligently failed to comply with the requirements of FCRA by:
1. failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681e(b);
1. failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681b(a); and
1. failing to comply with the requirements in 15 USC §1681g.
As a result of defendants’ failure to comply with the requirements of FCRA, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, actual damages including lost opportunity to receive credit, increased cost for credit, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress for which he seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to 15 USC §1681n(a).

COUNT IV

(Negligent Noncompliance with FCRA—Against United States Department of Education)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
1. United Stated Department of Education received notice of plaintiff’s dispute from plaintiff and from the consumer reporting agencies and negligently failed to comply with the requirements of 15 USC §1681s-2(b).
As a result of defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of FCRA, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, actual damages including lost opportunity to receive credit, increased cost for credit, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress for which he seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to 15 USC §1681o(a).

COUNT V

(Willful Noncompliance with FCRA—Against United States Department of Education)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
United Stated Department of Education received notice of plaintiff’s dispute from plaintiff and from the consumer reporting agencies and negligently failed to comply with the requirements of 15 USC §1681s-2(b).
As a result of defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of FCRA, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, actual damages including lost opportunity to receive credit, increased cost for credit, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress for which he seeks damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to 15 USC §1681o(a).

COUNT VI

(California’s Identity Theft Statute, Civil Code § 1798.92 et seq —Against United States Department of Education)

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
Plaintiff is the victim of identity theft as defined in Civil Code § 1798.92. The United States Department of Education purport to have a claim for money in connection with a transaction procured through identity theft.
More than 30 days prior to filing this action plaintiff provided written notice to United States Department of Education that a situation of identity theft might exist.
Plaintiff sent this written notice to United States Department of Education at the address designated by it.
In the written notice that plaintiff gave to United States Department of Education, plaintiff explained the basis for his belief that a situation of identity theft exists and he included a valid copy of the police report she had filed.
United States Department of Education failed to diligently investigate plaintiff’s notification of possible identity theft.
United States Department of Education continued to pursue its claim against plaintiff after it was presented with facts that showed plaintiff was the victim of identity theft.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against each Defendant for:

A declaration that Plaintiff is not obligated to the United States Department of Education on the accounts that they have asserted against the Plaintiff.
An order requiring United States Department of Education to credit Plaintiff with the amount wrongfully garnished from the Plaintiff’s tax refund;
An award of actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial against the Defendants for each incident of willful noncompliance of the FCRA;
An award of statutory damages of no less than $100 and a maximum of $1,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A), against Defendant for each incident of willful noncompliance of the FCRA;
An award of punitive damages, as the Court may allow pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2), against Defendant for each incident of willful noncompliance to the FCRA;
An award for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3), against Defendant for each incident of negligent noncompliance of the FCRA;
An award of actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1) against Defendant for each incident of negligent noncompliance of the FCRA;
An award of costs and litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(2) against Defendant for each incident of noncompliance of the FCRA;
Any and all other relief the Court deems just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

Dated: September 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: ___/s/ Denise Chavez___

DENISE CHAVEZ

[insert address]

[insert contact]

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Recent Posts

Quick Links

Legal Info

Services

Contact Us