Lawsuit Against Equifax

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

JAN $ 2 20ogIAM~B A7r1'EN, C)BY,

HELENA BROWN, §

Plaintiff, pro se, §

V. §

EQUIFAX INFORMATION §SERVICES, LLC, . §

Defendant. §JURY TRIAL DEMANDED'„ L

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

1

` ORIGINALFILED l

SN~ ~E p '~r~FFICE

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO:

I = Q-9 -- G V - 016 8

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 :

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") .

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

2

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 .


3

FACTUALALLEGATIONS: 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 .


4

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) .


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 mentioned 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 .

FACTUALALLEGATIONS: 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


6

. . . . 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 .


7

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 .


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


9

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 dispute 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 .


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 highlyy 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


1 1

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, Plaintiff 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 .


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 August 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


14

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) .


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 .

17

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 .


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, Plaintiff 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, 2009Selena

-Plaintiff ', pro se

4355 Cobb Pkwy, Ste J129Atlanta, GA 30339-3887Telephone : (404) 723-8916Email : [email protected]

19


Documents

Lawsuit Against Equifax