Lawsuit Against Equifax

Case 1:09-cv-00168-CAM-LTW Document 1 Filed 01/22/2009 Page 1 of 19
` ORIGINAL
FILED l N~ ~E p '~r~FFICE
S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN $ 2 20og
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION IAM~B A7r1'EN, C)
BY,
HELENA BROWN, §
Plaintiff, pro se, § CIVIL ACTION FILE NO :
V. §
I = Q -9 -- G V - 016 8
EQUIFAX INFORMATION §
SERVICES, LLC, . §
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED'„ L
Defendant. §
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Selena Brown (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), prose, and
for her causes of action against Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC
(hereinafter "Equifax"), avers as follows :
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 . This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against
Equifax regarding inaccurate entries on her credit report and for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U .S.C. § 1681 et seq., as
amended (hereinafter "FCRA") .
1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Federal question jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S .C . § 1681p
and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .
3 . Equifax is a for-profit limited liability company, organized, existing and
doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia
with its office and princ ipal place of business located at 1. 550 Peachtree
Street, N .W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ; therefore venue is proper in the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, pursuant to 28 U .S.C . §
1391(b) .
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is a natural person and is a resident of Cobb County, Georgia.
5. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as defined by the FCRA, 15 U .S.C. § 1681 a(c).
6. Equifax is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined by the FCRA, 15
U.S .C. § 1681a(f), that engages in the business of maintaining and
reporting consumer credit information .
7. Equifax may be served with process by delivering a copy of the Summons
and Complaint to its registered agent, Kent E. Mast, 1550 Peachtree
Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 .
2
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS : PART ONE
8. In October 2006 after reviewing her TransUnion and Experian credit
reports Plaintiff discovered her identity had been stolen .
9 . Plaintiff has spent over two years and more than $532 trying to bring
closure to this distressing ordeal (Plaintiffs Exhibits A-1 through A-3) .
10. After two years of gathering information and documentation Plaintiff has
deduced that Equifax (a rogue employee) was directly involved with
Plaintiffs identity theft . This is based on e-mails Plaintiff obtained from
the identity thief s e-mail account (which was fraudulently opened under
Plaintiffs name) and numerous inconsistencies that are found only in
Plaintiff s Equifax credit reports .
11 . Plaintiff s TransUnion, Experian and Innovis credit reports correctly
reported fraudulent addresses, names, phone numbers and inquiries
directly related to the identity thief.
12 . In stark contrast, Plaintiff s Equifax credit reports, a total of 18 received
between August 2006 -August 2008, reported zero fraudulent addresses,
zero fraudulent names, zero fraudulent phone numbers and only a few
fraudulent inquiries .
3
13 . On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff asked Equifax if her credit file contained
mis-merged or mixed files . Equifax said there were no mis-merged or
mixed files in Plaintiffs credit file . Therefore , all ofthe fraudulent
information reported by the other three credit bureaus should have
been reported by Equifax as well.
14 . In early 2006 an identity thief using the stolen personal information of a
Georgia woman named Tonia Leach had gained employment at Equifax .
15 . Coincidentally, Plaintiffs identity was stolen in 2006 .
16. The identity thief worked at Equifax for almost a full year before the real
Tonia Leach discovered that her identity had been stolen .
17 . In May 2007 an Equifax spokesman told WSB-TV/Channel 2 News in
Atlanta that the identity thief did not have access to sensitive information .
18, The identity thief is not available to confirm Equifax's statement because
law enforcement has not been able to locate her.
19. On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff submitted via certified mail a three-page
dispute letter with 51 pages of supporting documentation disputing the
completeness and accuracy of information contained in Plaintiff s credit
file (Plaintiff's Exhibits B-1 through B-4) .
4
20 . On November 12, 2008, Equifax responded with an absurd letter to
Plaintiff requesting additional documentation to process a security freeze
(Plaintiff's Exhibit C) .
21 . . Plaintiffs dispute letter never ment ioned a request for a security freeze .
22 . Equifax did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether
the disputed information was accurate or complete .
23 . Therefore, in November 2008 Equifax willfully and intentionally violated
15 U.S.C. § 16811 by failing to act as prescribed by federal statute after
receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer .
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS : PART TWO
24. On July 12, 2006, at 2 :18 p.m ., Plaintiff obtained her annual free credit
report from Equifax via a federally mandated and secure website with
encryption, www.annualcreditreport .com (Plaintiff s Exhibit D) .
25 . The online credit report contained no fraudulent information .
26 . At 5 : ]. 1 p.m. on that very same day and just three hours after Plaintiffs
initial contact with Equifax, an identity thief called Scana Energy and
opened a fraudulent account for an address in Clarkston, GA (Plaintiff's
Exhibits E-lthrough E-3) .
5
. . . . i
27 . Clarkston, GA is located 12 miles east of Equifax's Atlantaa office .
28. On July 13, 2006, the very next day, the identity thief attempted to
re-open a closed account with World Financial Network National Bank
(hereinafter "WFNNB").
29. WFNNB performed a hard inquiry via Equifax and Experian.
30. Experian correctly reported the fraudulent inquiry (Plaintiff's Exhibit F) .
31 . Equifax did not report the fraudulent inquiry. Instead, Equifax
fraudulently suppressed/concealed the WFNNB inquiry for five months
and then deleted it on December 5, 2006, along with six other fraudulent
inquiries, several "additional disputed inquiries and accounts (Equifax's
cryptic wording, not Plaintiffs)," two fraudulent names and two
fraudulent phone numbers (Plaintiff's Exhibit G).
32. Plaintiff had received four different credit reports from Equifax between
August 2006 - December 2006 (Plaintiff's Exhibits H-1 through K-4) .
33 . Absolutely none of the deleted information appeared anywhere on any of
those four credit reports .
34. All of the deleted information had been suppressed/concealed since July
2006 (five months) and all of it was directly related to the identityy thief .
6
35. On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff called Equifax and requested that her last
name be corrected . Plaintiff was still unaware at this point that her
identity had been stolen .
36 . Plaintiffs phone call required Equifax to mail an updated/current credit
report to Plaintiff s home address showing the name correction .
37 . On that very same day at 6 :14 p.m . and again seven minutes later at 6 :21
p.m., the identity thief submitted a fraudulent change of address via
www.whitefence .com (Plaintiff's Exhibits L-1 and L-2) .
38. The identity thief had been in possession of Plaintiffs personal
information since July 2006, yet this identity thief coincidentally chose
August 11, 2006, to submit a fraudulent change of address .
39 . Therefore, on the very same day Plaintiff generated an Equifax credit
report that could potentially expose the identity thief s fraudulent
activities, the identity thief submitted a fraudulent change of address .
40 . There were only two people who knew that a credit report was about to
be mailed to Plaintiffs home address - Plaintiff and Equifax .
41 . The fraudulent change of address was unsuccessful because unbeknownst
to the identity thief and Equifax the Plaintiff had a private mailbox .
7
42. Also on August 11, 2006, the identity thief fraudulently obtained
Plaintiff s TransUnion credit report (Plaintiff's Exhibit M) .
43 . The identity thief then hastily submitted 14 fraudulent credit applications .
44. Therefore, on August 11, 2006, after Plaintiff had called Equifax and
generated a potentially incriminating credit report, theree were three
different coincidences : (1) fraudulent change of address, (2) TransUnion
credit report obtained and (3) a slew of fraudulent credit applications .
45 . The very next day, August 12, 2006, the identity thief fraudulently
obtained Plaintiffs :Experian credit report (Plaintiff's Exhibit N)
46 . The identity thief never obtained Plaintiff s Equifax credit report .
47. On August 14, 2006 (a Monday), after a busy weekend of fraudulent
credit applications, the identity thief called Equifax (allegedly) and
disputed 12 hard inquiries (not soft inquiries) and three charge accounts
(Citi, Dell Financial Services [hereinafter "Dell"] and Target) .
48 . The identity thief never called TransUnion or Experian even though
he/she had fraudulently obtained credit reports from both credit bureaus .
49 . The identity thief chose to call (allegedly) Equifax even though he/she
had never obtained Plaintiffs credit report from Equifax .
8
50. Therefore, the identity thief was somehow able to get through Equifax's
interactive voice response (NR) phone system without a confirmation
number and then d ispute a total of 15 items without a credit ' report.
S 1 . Equifax was then able to : (1) submit 15 disputes to 15 different creditors ;
(2) receive responses back from all 15 creditors ; (3) delete 12 hard
inquiries, not soft inquiries, based on the responses from each creditor ;
(4) review Plaintiffs credit file to ensure all disputes had been addressed ;
(5) generate three separate credit reports based on the 12 hard inquiry
deletions and (6) mail those three separate credit reports to Plaintiff .
52 . All of this was accomplished (allegedly) in less than eight hours on
August 14, 2006, the very same day of the alleged "phone call" from the
identity thief.
53 . Equifax did not give Plaintiff the same speedy service that was given to
the identity thief.
54 . Plaintiff had also called Equifax on a Monday, December 4, 2006 ;
however, she only disputed three hard inquiries (HSBC Retail, Wal-Mart
and Cingular Wireless) . Equifax took four working days to investigate
and delete those three hard inquiries .
9
55 . Plaintiff then called on a Friday, January l9, 2007, and disputed only two
hard inquiries (Comcast andHome Shopping Network [hereinafter
"HSN"]). Equifax took three working days to investigate and delete
those two hard inquiries .
56 . Therefore, it took Equifax an average of three and a half working days to
resolve an average of only two disputes for Plaintiff, yet Equifax took
less than eight hours to resolve 15 disputes (seven times -as many) for the
identity thief. This anomaly is highly

y suspicious.
57. On August 25, 2008, Plaintiff contacted Ms Anna Holland at the Target
Fraud Division . She stated that Target had not received any type of
dispute from Equifax on August l 4 ; 2006 .
58 . Equifax hadd allegedly generated three separate credit reports on August
14, 2006, after quickly deleting 12 hard inquiries for the identity thief
59 . Equifax allegedly mailed the credit reports to Plaintiffs correct address .
60. Plaintiff never received those three credit reports ; however, Plaintiff did
receive the other 18 credit reports, 14 letters and six PS Forms 3811
(certified mail receipts) for a total of 38 separate pieces of mail from
Equifax since July 12, 2006 (Plaintiff s Exhibit 0).
10
61 . Plaintiff has also received 115 separate pieces of mail related to her
identity theft from 22 other businesses (Plaintiff's previous Exhibit 0).
62 . Therefore, Plaintiff has received every single document that she has
requested, except three credit reports directly related to an alleged "phone
call" from the identity thief. This anomaly is alsoo highly suspicious .
63 . On June 22 , 2007, Plainti ff called Equifax and requested that they mail
her another copy of the three missing credit reports.
64 . Plaintiff specifically requested Confirmation #6226017229, #622601804
and #6226017935 and then verified her correct/current mailing address .
65 . That very same day, Equifax allegedly mailed four credit reports to
Plaintiff even though Plaintiff had specifically requested only three .
66. Equifax mailed only one credit report, #6317015115, to Plaintiff s correct
address (Plaintiff's Exhibit P) .
67. Plaintiff had not requested #6317015115 and it had absolutely nothing to
do with the three credit reports Plaintiff had specifically requested .
68 . Equifax then mailed (allegedly) the three credit reports that Plaintiff had
specifically requested (#6226017229, #6226018041 and #6226017935)
to a totally different address in a totally different state .
11
69. There was one, and only one, address of any type reporting in Plaintiffs
Equifax credit file on June 22, 2007 (Plaintiffs previous Exhibit P) .
70. There is no logical explanation for Equifax's actions on June 22, 2007 .
71 . On six different occasions (June 22,2007 ; October 9, 2007 ; February 12,
2008 ; July 21, 2008 ; August 11, 2008 and August 25, 2008) Plaintiff has
specifically requested copies of the three missing credit reports .
72. One credit report, #6226017229, was finally produced in February 2008
after eight months and three phone calls .
73 . Confirmation #6226018041 and #6226017935 are still missing in action .
74. On August 30, 2006, Plaintiff had attempted to obtain her TransUnion and
Experian credit reports via www .annualcreditreport .com; however, she
kept receiving error messages stating that she had already obtained them .
75. The identity thief had actually obtained both credit reports on August 11
and Augu st 12 , 2006 .
76. Plaintiff was still unaware of her identity theft on August 30, 2006 ;
however, the error messages raised red flags for possible identity theft .
77. On September 19, 2006, Plaintiff froze her credit files as a precaution due
to the error messages from www.annualcreditreport .com.
12
78 . The identity thief had been able to open 15 fraudulent accounts in just two
months (July 12 - September 14, 2006) ; however, Plaintiffs credit freeze
immediately halted his/her ability to open any more accounts .
79. Four of the accounts (Dell, Target, Cingular Wireless and Scana Energy)
had been opened using 1024 Noble Vines Dr #4, Clarkston, GA 30021
(Plaintiff s Exhibits Q-1, Q-2, R, S and previous Exhibit E- 1 ) .
80. Three accounts (DirecTV, a second Target account and Georgia
Power/Southern Company) had been opened using 751 N . Indian Creek
Dr #429, Clarkston, GA 30021 .
81 . All seven of the inquiries were performed via Equifax (Plaintiff s previous
Exhibits E-3, G, 1-2 and 1-3) .
82. All seven of the fraudulent credit applications were approved .
83 . Equifax's own website states that current and previous addresses in the
credit file come from credit applications (Plaintiffs Exhibit T) .
84 . Therefore, Equifax received and processed seven inquiries containing two
different fraudulent addresses ; however, Equifax has never reported one
single fraudulent address on any of the 18 credit reports mailed to
Plaintiff over a two-year period, August 2006 - August 2008.
13
85 . On August 25, 2008, Plaintiff contacted Ms Anna Holland at the Target
Fraud Division . Ms Holland stated that Target had actually reported both
of the aforementioned Clarkston, GA addresses to Equifax, Experian and
TransUnion between August 11, 2006 - December 12, 2006 .
86. All four of the credit bureaus correctly reported the fraudulent accounts .
87. Experian also reported five fraudulent addresses, two fraudulent names
and one fraudulent phone number (Plaintiff's Exhibits U-1 and U-2) .
88. TransUnion reported , three fraudulent addresses and one fraudulent phone
number (Plaintiff's Exhibits V 1 through V-3) .
89. Innovis reported one fraudulent address and one fraudulent phone number
(Plaintiff's Exhibits W- I and W-2).
90. TransUnion, Experian and Innovis all reported the same fraudulent
address, 1024 Noble Vines Dr #4, Clarkston, GA 30021, and the same
fraudulent phone number, (404) 296-4431 .
91 . Equifax has never reported one single fraudulent address .
92. Equifax fraudulently suppressed/concealed the fraudulent phone number
([404] . 296-4431) and two fraudulent names for five months and then
deleted them on December 5, 2406 (Plaintiff s previous Exhibit G) .
14
93 . At all times pertinent hereto, Equifax was acting by and through its
agents, servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and
scope of their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision
and control of Equifax .
94 . Equifax's intentional, willful, reckless and malicious disregard of statutory
dutyy was a direct and proximate cause in bringing about Plaintiffs actual
damages, including but not limited to, emotional distress, insomnia and
economic damages .
CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violating the FCRA~
95. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 94 as if fully set
forth herein.
96 . Plaintiffs credit file contained inaccurate and incomplete information .
97 . On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff notified Equifax directly of the inaccurate
and incomplete information by submitting a three-page dispute letter with
51 pages of support ing documentation via certified mail . ,
98 . Plaintiffs dispute was not frivolous or irrelevant .
99 . Equifax willfully and intentionally failed to reinvestigate as prescribed by
federal statute after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer .
15
100. Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U .S .C . § 1681e(b) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of Plaintiffs credit reports .
101 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U .S .C . § 1681g(a)(1) by
failing to clearly and accurately disclose to Plaintiff all information in
Plaintiff s file .
102. Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 1 5 U.S .C. § 1681g(a)(3)(A)
(ii) by failing to clearly and accurately disclose to Plaintiff the
identification of each person that had procured Plaintiff s consumer
report .
103 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U .S .C . § 1681i(a)(1)(A)
by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether
the disputed information was inaccurate or incomplete .
104 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U . S.C. § 1681 i(a)(2)(A)
by failing to provide notification of Plaintiffs dispute to Dell and Target
before the expiration of the five-business-day period .
105 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U .S.C. § 168li(a)(2)(B)
by failing to promptly provide to Dell and Target all relevant information
16
regarding the dispute received by Equifax from Plaintiff .
106 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U . S.C, § 1681 i(a)(4) by
failing to review and consider all relevant information submitted by
Plaintiff with respect to disputed information .
107. Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated 15 U .S.C . § 16811(a)(6)(A)
by failing to provide written notice to Plaintiff of the results of the
reinvestigation that allegedly occurred on August 14, 2006 .
108 . Equifax willfully and/or negligently violated I 5 U.S .C . § 1681i(a)(7) by
failing to provide to Plaintiff a description of the procedure used by
Equifax on August 14, 2006, to determine the accuracy and completeness
of information, including the business name and address of any furnisher
of information contacted in connection with such information .
109 . As a result of Equi£ax's willful and/or negligent violations of the FCRA,
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not
limited to, emotional distress, insomnia and economic damages .
110 . Plaintiff has suffered mental distress and insomnia due to indisputable
evidence confirming that an Equifax employee manipulated Plaintiffs
credit file on numerous occasions to conceal Plaintiffs identity theft .
17
111 . The identity thief that Equifax hired in 2006 did not need personal access
to sensitive information to steal identities ; she only needed proximity to
thee employees that had access to sensitive information .
112 . At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Equifax, as well as that of its
agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, reckless,
willful and was done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with
the knowledge that their actions would very likely harm Plaintiff .
113 . Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to punish Equifax for
its deliberate, willful, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter
Equifax and any other credit reporting agency from engaging in such
misconduct in the future .
114. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C . § 1681n for
willful violations and/or 15 U .S .C. § 16810 for negligent violations .
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
115. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so friable .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WI-IEREFORE, Plainti ff seeks judgment in Plaintiffs favor and damages
against Equifax and respectfully prays for :
18
a. Actual damages in an amount to be determined by the jury ;
b. Statutory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury ;
c. Punitive Damages in an amount to be determined by the jury ;
d. Costs and expenses incurred in this action and
e. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper .
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: January 22, 2009

Selena
-Plaintiff', pro se
4355 Cobb Pkwy, Ste J129

Atlanta, GA 30339-3887
Telephone : (404) 723-8916
Email : mas1ow527@gmail .com
19

Lawsuit Against Equifax

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Against Equifax

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Against Equifax

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:09-cv-00168-CAM-LTW Document 1 Filed 01/22/2009 Page 1 of 19

Plaintiff, pro se, § CIVIL ACTION FILE NO :

(hereinafter "Equifax"), avers as follows :

1 . This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against

Equifax regarding inaccurate entries on her credit report and for

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U .S.C. § 1681 et seq., as

amended (hereinafter "FCRA") .

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Federal question jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S .C . § 1681p

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .

3 . Equifax is a for-profit limited liability company, organized, existing and

Street, N .W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ; therefore venue is proper in the

Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, pursuant to 28 U .S.C . §

4. Plaintiff is a natural person and is a resident of Cobb County, Georgia.

5. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as defined by the FCRA, 15 U .S.C. § 1681 a(c).

6. Equifax is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined by the FCRA, 15

U.S .C. § 1681a(f), that engages in the business of maintaining and

reporting consumer credit information .

7. Equifax may be served with process by delivering a copy of the Summons

and Complaint to its registered agent, Kent E. Mast, 1550 Peachtree

Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309 .

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS : PART ONE

8. In October 2006 after reviewing her TransUnion and Experian credit

reports Plaintiff discovered her identity had been stolen .

closure to this distressing ordeal (Plaintiffs Exhibits A-1 through A-3) .

deduced that Equifax (a rogue employee) was directly involved with

Plaintiffs identity theft . This is based on e-mails Plaintiff obtained from

Plaintiffs name) and numerous inconsistencies that are found only in

Plaintiff s Equifax credit reports .

11 . Plaintiff s TransUnion, Experian and Innovis credit reports correctly

reported fraudulent addresses, names, phone numbers and inquiries

directly related to the identity thief.

12 . In stark contrast, Plaintiff s Equifax credit reports, a total of 18 received

between August 2006 -August 2008, reported zero fraudulent addresses,

mis-merged or mixed files . Equifax said there were no mis-merged or

mixed files in Plaintiffs credit file . Therefore , all ofthe fraudulent

information reported by the other three credit bureaus should have

been reported by Equifax as well.

14 . In early 2006 an identity thief using the stolen personal information of a

Georgia woman named Tonia Leach had gained employment at Equifax .

15 . Coincidentally, Plaintiffs identity was stolen in 2006 .

Tonia Leach discovered that her identity had been stolen .

17 . In May 2007 an Equifax spokesman told WSB-TV/Channel 2 News in

law enforcement has not been able to locate her.

19. On November 3, 2008, Plaintiff submitted via certified mail a three-page

dispute letter with 51 pages of supporting documentation disputing the

completeness and accuracy of information contained in Plaintiff s credit

file (Plaintiff's Exhibits B-1 through B-4) .

20 . On November 12, 2008, Equifax responded with an absurd letter to

Plaintiff requesting additional documentation to process a security freeze

22 . Equifax did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether

the disputed information was accurate or complete .

23 . Therefore, in November 2008 Equifax willfully and intentionally violated

15 U.S.C. § 16811 by failing to act as prescribed by federal statute after

receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer .

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS : PART TWO

encryption, www.annualcreditreport .com (Plaintiff s Exhibit D) .

25 . The online credit report contained no fraudulent information .

opened a fraudulent account for an address in Clarkston, GA (Plaintiff's

Exhibits E-lthrough E-3) .