LOKER LAW, APC
MATTHEW M. LOKER, ESQ. (279939) MATT@LOKER.LAW
1303 EAST GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 101
ARROYO GRANDE, CA 93420 TELEPHONE: (805) 994-0177
FACSIMILE: (805) 994-0197
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
HANS W. LODGE, ESQ.
(PRO HAC VICE TO BE REQUESTED) HLODGE@BM.NET
43 SE MAIN STREET, SUITE 505
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414
TELEPHONE: (612) 607-7794
FACSIMILE: (612) 584-4470
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DENISE CHAVEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES
LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, SLM
CORPORATION, AND GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES INC
Defendant
Case No.: Number
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR
CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. §
1681, 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”), U.S. Department of Education (“DoE”),
University of Phoenix (“the University”), SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), and Great Lakes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
Educational Loan Services Inc. (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; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq; and 42 U.S.
Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. 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.”
2. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
3. 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.
4. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, U.S.
Department of Education, University of Phoenix, SLM Corporation, and and Great Lakes
Educational Loan Services Inc. 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), for their failure to fulfill their reinvestigation duties in violation of the FCRA, 15
U.S.C. § 1681i; for violation of the equal credit opportunity act, and for conspiracy to violate
Plaintiff’s civil rights.
5. Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendants took place in
the State of California.
6. Any violations by each Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and
Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violations.
7. 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 Defendants named.
THE PARTIES
8. 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).
9. Plaintiff is a “Victim of Identity Theft” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.82(d).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
10. 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.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(d) and a “person” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ.
Code § 1785.3(j).
16. Defendant U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government
that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates federal assistance to education.
17. Defendant University of Phoenix is a private for-profit University.
18. Defendant SLM Corporation is a publicly traded U.S. corporation that provides
consumer banking.
19. Defendant Great Lakes Educational Loan Services Inc. operates(ed) as a non-
profit organization. The Organization provides(ed) student loan processing and administration
services.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20. 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”); for violation of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq; and 42 U.S. Code § 1985 (Conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights).
21. Because Defendants conduct business within the State of California, personal
jurisdiction is established.
22. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
An Identity Thief Opens a Fraudulent Student Loan Account in Plaintiff’s Name
with the University of Phoenix.
23. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff is an individual residing within the State of
California.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. The U of P Loans are believed to have been utilized by the imposter to attend the
University of Phoenix, an online undergraduate university.
28. The $1,153.00 Loan is believed to have been funded by the United States
Department of Education (“DoE”).
29. The $3,039.00 Loan was funded by the University of Phoenix.
30. Plaintiff never even graduated from high school and, consequently, never sought
such financial aid from the University of Phoenix for postsecondary education.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
31. 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
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. The fraudulent PU Loan was originated in or about January 2014 in the amount of
$1,175.00.
35. 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.
36. The $1,175.00 Loan was funded by the DoE/Great Lakes Educational Loan
Services Inc (“GLELSI”).
37. Plaintiff never even graduated from high school and, consequently, never sought
such financial aid from Park University for postsecondary education.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
38. 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
39. Upon discovering that she was the victim of identity theft, Plaintiff contacted both
Universities to directly dispute the student loans.
40. 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.
41. 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
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
45. 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
46. On or about May 25, 2018, Plaintiff applied for a Capital One credit card.
47. 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 Disputes with the Credit Bureaus in or Around July 2018
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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
51. 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).
52. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
53. 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.”
54. 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.
55. Metro II codes are used on an industry wide form known within the credit
industry as an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) electronic form.
56. The ACDVs have many fields in their body for use in effecting thorough and
complete communications between data furnishers and the credit reporting agencies.
57. 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
58. In or about July 2018, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
59. The DoE and U of P verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were
accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
60. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
61. In or about July 2018, Experian sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
62. The DoE and U of P verified for Experian that the disputed accounts were
accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
63. 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.
64. In or about July 2018, Equifax sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
65. The DoE and U of P verified for Equifax that the disputed accounts were
accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
66. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
67. On or about September 4, 2018, Plaintiff applied for credit with Dish Network to
open a cable television account.
68. 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
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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.
72. 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
73. In or about September 2018, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
74. The DoE and U of P verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were
accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
75. 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
76. On or about November 22, 2018, Plaintiff applied for a credit card with Chase
Bank.
77. 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”)
78. 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.
79. 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
80. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
81. 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
82. In or about January 2019, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
83. The DoE verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately
reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
84. 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
85. 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.
86. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Submits Identity Theft Affidavit to the University of Phoenix, the
Department of Education, and the CFPB in April 2019
87. 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.
88. A few days later the U of P sent Plaintiff an ID Theft Affidavit, which Plaintiff
promptly completed.
89. 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.
90. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted additional disputes with supporting documentation,
including her Police Report and ID Theft Affidavit, to the U of P, DoE, and CFPB.
91. 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
92. 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.
93. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Plaintiff eventually gained access to the Promissory Notes associated with the
fraudulent student loans online via the National Student Loan Data System (“NSLDS”).
97. While the Promissory Notes contained Plaintiff’s name, birthdate, and Social
Security number, they also contained significant information that did not belong to Plaintiff.
98. For example, the Promissory Notes listed Plaintiff’s home address as being in
Tucker, Georgia.
99. Plaintiff has never lived in the State of Georgia nor in any state outside of the
State of California.
100. The Promissory Notes also listed a telephone number with an area code from the
State of Georgia, which Plaintiff has never utilized.
101. 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.
102. 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
103. 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.
104. The University of Phoenix eventually honored Plaintiff’s fraud disputes and
suppressed its reporting of the fraudulent student loan account.
105. 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
106. 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.
107. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
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 9th
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 9th 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:
i. My Driver’s License State and No. was not included;
ii. The ID thief listed an address I have never lived at (2301
Lawrenceville Hwy, Tucker, GA 30084);
iii. The Area Code/Telephone No. listed is for Atlanta, GA, and I have
never had an Atlanta area code;
iv. I have no relationship with the references listed (Ann Minion and
Donna Alford) and have never even heard of these two people;
v. I never attended or received any services from Park University;
and
vi. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
108. In January 2020, Equifax sent ACDVs to the DoE (Equifax was no longer
reporting the U of P account).
109. The DoE verified for Equifax that the disputed accounts were accurately reporting
on Plaintiff’s credit report.
110. 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.
111. In or about January 2020, Trans Union sent ACDVs to the DoE (Trans Union was
no longer reporting the U of P account).
112. The DoE verified for Trans Union that the disputed accounts were accurately
reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
113. 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) wa 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.
114. In or about February 2020, Experian sent ACDVs to the DoE and the U of P.
115. The DoE and U of P verified for Experian that the disputed accounts were
accurately reporting on Plaintiff’s credit report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
116. 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.
117. 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).
118. Defendants’ investigations were unreasonable.
119. 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.
120. 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. Plaintiff’s continued efforts to correct Defendants’ erroneous and derogatory
reporting via dispute were fruitless.
121. The Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the
disputed information as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
122. 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).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
123. 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).
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. Defendants do not intend to modify their dispute-processing procedures because
doing so would drastically increase their operating expenses.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
128. Instead, Defendants intentionally choose not to comply with the FCRA to lower
their costs. Accordingly, Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are willful.
129. Defendants’ continued inaccurate reporting of the derogatory information on
Plaintiff’s credit reports in light of Defendants’ knowledge of the actual errors was willful.
130. Defendants’ continued inaccurate reporting of the derogatory information on
Plaintiff’s credit reports in light of Defendants’ knowledge of the actual errors was reckless.
131. 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.
132. Accordingly, Defendants willfully and negligently failed to comply with their
respective duties to reasonably investigate Plaintiff’s dispute.
133. Defendants’ inaccurate and negative reporting damage Plaintiff’s credit
worthiness.
134. Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiff emotional distress.
135. Plaintiff has spent countless hours disputing this inaccurate information with
Defendants in an attempt to provide any and all information needed for the investigations.
136. 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.
137. 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.
138. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated attempts, Defendants continue to report invalid debts
on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
139. 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.
140. Based upon the discussion above, Plaintiff contends that punitive damages are
available to Plaintiff.
141. By intentionally reporting continuing obligations, the Credit Bureaus acted in
conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
142. 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.
143. This inaccurate credit reporting has caused Plaintiff to receive credit denials from
Target; Capital One; Chase; Dish Network; WebBank/Fingerhut; and others.
144. The inaccurate credit reporting has also precluded Plaintiff from obtaining
employment with Uber; Lyft; and, a Staffing Agency.
145. This inability to obtain credit or secure employment as a result of the fraudulent
credit reporting has severely impacted Plaintiff.
146. Plaintiff is being punished each and every day because an imposter chose to steal
her identity.
147. These issues have grinded Plaintiff’s life to a halt since the Credit Bureaus have
refused to allow Plaintiff to clear her name.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
148. 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
15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681X (FCRA)
[AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS]
149. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
as though fully stated herein.
150. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations of
the FCRA.
151. 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.
152. 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 2
Violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.
(Against Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and US Department of Education)
153. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
as though fully stated herein.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
154. Plaintiff, being an American of Mexican origin, avers that Defendants Equifax,
Experian, Trans Union failed to consider Plaintiff’s disputes to the accounts, which clearly
showed that the accounts were erroneous. Defendant US Department of Education was in a
position to denounce the accounts against Plaintiff, which were erroneously and/or unjustly
reported. Instead, the said Defendant appeared to collide with the Defendants in this action to
further deprive Plaintiff of her access to credit.
155. As a result of the aforesaid actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff’s credit report was
bad, and she was denied credit. For instance, the Dish Network denied Plaintiff Credit due to the
Fraudulent Student Loan Accounts on her Equifax Credit Report. Besides, Plaintiff’s social
security was erroneously added on her son’s medical chart, which is ultimately the reason for
everything that happened to him because the hospital put Plaintiff’s insurance, Social Security
Number, and driver’s license as in place of Plaintiff’s son.
COUNT 3
Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 1985 (Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights)
(Against all Defendants)
156. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
as though fully stated herein.
157. There was a conspiracy and/or a concerted action between the US Department of
Education and the Defendants using Social Services.
158. The aforesaid conspiracy was entered to deprive plaintiff of the right to parent the
Plaintiff’s children and to perform credit discrimination on Plaintiff and on Plaintiff’s husband’s
credit although he pays off all of his debt.
159. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendants failed and/or refused to address
Plaintiff’s concerns over the said violation(s).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
160. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants have caused Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s family irreparable harm for example Plaintiff has had to spend over 15000 for private
attorneys in pursuit of legal redress. Besides, as result of the bad credit report, Plaintiff cannot
get approved for anything because of the negative comments these companies keep using to
make Plaintiff look bad.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against each Defendant for:
i. An award of actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial or damages of 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;
ii. 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;
iii. An award for costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(3),
against Defendant for each incident negligent noncompliance of the FCRA;
iv. 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;
v. 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;
vi. Any and all other relief the Court deems just and proper.
TRIAL BY JURY
161. Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: __________
LOKER LAW, APC
By: ___/s/ Matthew M. Loker___
MATTHEW M. LOKER, ESQ.
Attorney For Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been
sent to the Defendants in the following addresses:
[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]
DATED: _______________
__________________________
[ENTER NAME]
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 )