Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/09/12 Pagel of 20 is44~sAND (Rev. 12/11) CIVIL COVER SHEET The 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor sugplemcnt the ?ling and service of pleadin or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judieial Conference of the United tates in September 1974, is required fort use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PA GE OF THIS FORM.) AK I. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Sergio L. Ramirez Trans Union. LLC County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Alameda I 7 County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CA ses) (m us. PLAINTIFF CASES ONL r) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, use THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. AngfgewAjto 0Y5 (Firm Nam 6. Address. and Attorneys (trauma-ii) (g 5 giIVIe. Esq. Anderson. Ogilvie 8r Brewer. LLP 5( 600 California St, 18th FloorI San Francisco. CA 94108 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an in One Box Only) CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an in One Plaimijy) (For Diversity Only) and One Box for Defendant) Cl 1 U.S. Government 3 3Federa1 Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government N01 6' Party) Citizen ot?This State Cl 1 El 1 1ncorporated or Principal Place Cl 4 Cl 4 ot'Business In This State Cl 2 U.S. Government El 4 Diversity Cilizen ofAnothcr State 3 2 Cl 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 CI 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizens-hip quarli'es in Item Ill) ol'Business In Another State Citizen or Subject ofa El 3 El 3 Foreign Nation 6 El 6 Foreign Country_ IV. OF (Place an in One Bar Only) arenas. . -- FORFEITUREIPENALTY El ?0 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY Cl 625 Drug Related Seizure Cl 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 El 375 False Claims Act 13 120 Marine Cl 310 Airplane Cl 365 Personal Injury ofProperty 21 USC 881 El 423 Withdrawal El 400 State Reapportionment El 130 Miller Act 13 315 Airplane Product Product Liability CI 690 Other 28 USC El 410 Antitrust El 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability El 367 Health Carol 430 Banks and Banking El 150 Recovery of Overpayment El 320 Assault, Libel Pharmaceutical PROPERTY HEIGHTS El 450 Commerce tilt Enforcement ofJudgment Slander Personal injury El 820 Copyrights Cl 460 Deportation Cl 151 Medicare Act Cl 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 3 830 Patent El 470 Racketeer In?uenced and Cl 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability CI 368 Asbestos Personal Cl 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans 13 340 Marine injury Product nsumer Credit (Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability . LABOR - w? - -r mi Cl 153 Recovery ovaerpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY CI 710 Fair Labor Standards Cl 861 (l395ff) l?Commodities/ ofVeteran's Bene?ts El 350 Motor Vehicle El 370 Other Fraud Act CI 862 Black Lung (923) El 160 Stockholders? Suits El 355 Motor Vehicle El 371 Truth in Lending Cl 720 Labor/Mgnit. Relations El 863 (405(g) tory Actions CI l90 Other Contract Product Liability El 380 Other Personal 0 740 Railway Labor Act Cl 864 Title 891 Agrie tural Acts CI 195 Contract Product Liability Cl 360 Other Personal Property Damage 0 751 Family and Medical CI 865 RSI (405(g)) ronmental Matters Cl 196 Franchise Injury Cl 385 Property Damage Leave Act reedom oflnformation 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability :1 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice Cl 791 Enipl. Ret. Inc. El 896 Arbitration . - "inmat- owing IGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act TAX SUITS CI 399 Administrative Procedure Cl 210-Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights El 510 Motions to Vacate El 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of Cl 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision Cl 230 Rent Lease 8: Ejectment 442 Employment Haheas Corpus: Cl 871 IRS?Third Party CI 950 Constitutionality of Cl 240 Torts to Land El 443 Housing! El 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes El 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations a 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION CI 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/D isabilities - 540 Mandamus Other Cl 462 Naturalization Application Employment El 550 Civil Rights CI 463 Habeas Corpus - 446 Amer. wIDisabilities El 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee Other 0 560 Civil Detainee (Prisoner Petition) 448 Education Conditions of Cl 465 Other Immigration Con?nement Actions V. (Place an in One Box Only) 12? 1 Original El 2 Removed from El 3 Remandcd from El 4 Rcinstatcd or Cl 5 CI 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Litigation Aw I Civil Statute under which on are ?ling (Do not citejurisd'i firm at statutes unless diversity): Fair edit Reporting Actseq, et al. Brief dcf?ription of cause: VI. CAUSE OF ACTI VII. REQUESTED I CK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 5 CHECK YES only ifdemanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: DER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: a Yes CI No RELATED (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER CW IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2) Place an in One Box Only) 13 SAN ND SAN JOSE Cl EUREKA DATE 02/09/2012 SIGNATURE OF AT RNEY OF /V/?wi Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page2 of 20 Andrew J. Ogilvie SBN 57932 andy@oblawmrs.com Carol McLean Brewer SBN 214035 4 It carol@aoblamrs.com I ANDERSON, OGILVIE BREWER, LLP, 600 California Street, 18th Floor i San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 651-1952 Facsimile: (415) 956?3233 James A. Francis (pro hac Vice application to be submitted) francis@consumerlaw ?rm.com John Soumilas (pro hac Vice application to be submitted) FRANCIS MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 73 5-8600 Facsimile: (215)940-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Sergio L. Ramirez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 9 CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, 3 COMPLAINT TRANS UNION, LLC, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a consumer class action based upon the widespread violations by defendant Trans Union, LLC (?Trans Union? or ?Defendant?) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 1681x Trans Union is regulated as a consumer oomemeNHOKDooqoxm-thr??O Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page3 of 20 reporting agency under the CRA. Trans Union is also regulated as a consumer credit reporting agency under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act Cal. Civ. Code 1785.1 1787.3. The rights of consumers to inspect and correct consumer information sold about them are at the heart of the FCRA and the CCRAA. Trans Union deprives consumers of these rights by willfully failing to comply with the CRA and the CCRAA and refusing to follow their requirements and provide consumers with all information it sells about them to third parties, speci?cally, information about whether a given consumer is reported as purportedly included in the Of?ce of Foreign Assets Control, Speci?cally Designated National and Blocked Persons list. As a result, Trans Union deprives consumers of rights afforded to them by the FCRA and the CCRAA to obtain a copy of and review the information that Trans Union sells about them, to dispute and to have corrected any inaccurate or incomplete information that Trans Union is reporting, and to require that Trans Union maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of that information before it sells it to any third party in a consumer report. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction exists for the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367. 3. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Sergio L. Ramirez is an adult individual who resides in Fremont, California. 5. Defendant Trans Union, LLC is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Northern District of California and which has a principal place of business located at 1510 Chester Pike, Crum Lynne, PA 19022. Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page4 of 20 FACTUAL ALLEGATION A. Trans Union Fails To Provide Consumers With All Information In Their Files, And Fails To Report Consumer Information Accurately 6. Defendant is one of the ?big three? credit reporting agencies (singular in the US. 7. Defendant sells consumer reports (commonly called ?credit reports?) about millions of consumers annually. 8. Defendant is regulated by the CRA and its state analogue the CCRAA. 9. The FCRA is intended ?to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a con?dential and responsible manner.? Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d Cir. 2010). 10. In furtherance of that goal, the CRA mandates that each CRA provide consumers with access to the information sold about them to third parties and also provide consumers with an opportunity to review and dispute any inaccuracies in their credit ?les. See 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a) and l68li(a). 11. Speci?cally, each CRA is required by the CRA to provide consumers with copies of their consumer ?les without charge every twelve months, after a credit denial and in other limited circumstances. See 15 U.S.C. 1681g(a). 12. The term when used in connection with information on any consumer, means ?all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.? See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(g) (emphasis added). 13. ?Congress clearly intended the protections of the FCRA to apply to all information furnished or that might be furnished in a consumer report? and an FCRA denotes all information on the consumer that is recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency that might be furnished, or has been furnished, in a consumer report on Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page5 of 20 that consumer.? Cortez, 617 F.3d at 711-12 (citing Gillespie v. Trans Union Corp, 482 F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir. 2007)). 14. After obtaining and reviewing a copy of their ?les, consumers have the right to dispute any inaccurate information in their credit ?les, and to have errors corrected by the CRA, usually within 30 days of their disputes. See 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a). 15. In a seminal decision against Trans Union, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that alerts? are part of a consumer?s credit ?le and must be included in a ?le disclosure provided to the consumer. ?We hold that information relating to the OFAC alert is part of the consumer?s as de?ned in the Cortez, 617 F.3d at 712. 16. An OFAC alert is a speci?c type of data provided by consumer reporting agencies on credit reports signifying that the subject of the report is purportedly included in the list of the Of?ce of Foreign Assets Control, Speci?cally Designated National and Blocked Persons, which includes terrorists, money launderers and narcotics traf?ckers. 17. In Cortez, Trans Union argued that an OFAC alert is not part of its ?le on the consumer. 18. Trans Union also argued in Cortez that it does not need to reinvestigate or correct an erroneous OFAC alert that it has placed on in a consumer?s ?le. 19. Trans Union also argued in Cortez that it is not required to disclose an OFAC alert in a consumer?s ?le when that consumer asks for a disclosure of the contents of his/her ?le. 20. In Cortez, the Court of Appeal rejected Trans Union?s argument that an OFAC alert is not part of its ?le on the consumer. 21. In Cortez, the Court of Appeal also rejected Trans Union?s it does not need to reinvestigate or correct an erroneous OFAC alert that it has placed on in a consumer?s ?le. Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page6 of 20 22. In Cortez, the Court of Appeal also rejected Trans Union?s argument that it does not have to disclose an OFAC alert in a consumer?s ?le when that consumer asks for a disclosure of the contents of his/her ?le at Trans Union. 23. The United States Court of Appeals in Cortez held that Trans Union was liable for failing to disclose OFAC alerts in consumer ?les and for failing to reinvestigate and correct an OFAC alert erroneously attributed by Trans Union to the wrong consumer. Id. at 712-13. 24. Nonetheless, despite this clear Third Circuit precedent directed to the same Defendant, Trans Union continues to compile and sell reports about consumers that include OFAC alerts, without including the same OFAC alerts in the consumer ?le disclosures Defendant provides to those same consumers. 25. Defendant further misinforms consumers about their right to dispute such inaccurate OFAC alert information and have it corrected pursuant to the FCRA, and in fact fails to reinvestigate and correct such errors. 26. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant, as a matter of its normal course and practice, and despite the Third Circuit?s decision in Cortez, fails to include the OFAC alerts that it reports about consumers to third parties in the consumer?s own ?les which consumers, as of right, may request and obtain from the Defendant. 27. Also as a matter of common practice, Defendant does not advise consumers that they may dispute inaccurate OFAC alerts, and thus does not reinvestigate such disputes or correct such errors. 28. Defendant also fails to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the OFAC alert information it sells about consumers in the ?rst place. See 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). 29. One of the most well known and prevalent inaccuracies that occurs in Trans Union?s consumer ?les is a ?mixed Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page? of 20 30. A mixed ?le is a consumer report in which some or all of the information in the report pertains to a person other than the person who is the subject of the report. 31. Defendant has known since entering into a Consent Order agreeing to correct the mixed ?le problem on October 26, 1992, in The State of Alabama, et al. v. Trans Union Corp, (ND. 111.), that it has a widespread problem of reporting one consumer?s information in the credit report of another. 32. In the above-referenced litigation brought by the Attorneys General of seventeen states, Defendant agreed to take af?rmative action to remedy the ?mixed ?le? problem, speci?cally by using ?full identifying information? to properly identify each individual consumer. 33. Indeed, the main cause of the mixed ?le problem is Defendant?s failure to use full identifying information to match credit records on its database to the information of consumers actually applying for credit, insurance or employment. 34. In The State of Alabama, et al. v. Trans Union Corp, 92-C-7101 (ND. 111.), Defendant agreed to collect and use ?full last name and ?rst name; middle initial; full street address; zip code; year of birth; any generational designation; ar? social security number? in preparing any report about any given consumer. Id. at ?11 (emphasis added). 35. Despite those representations by Defendant, to date more than a hundred thousand possible mixed ?les are known to occur every year in Defendant?s credit reporting databases. 36. Despite those representations by Defendant, to date Defendant?s common practice is to use only partial matching, and not full identifying information, in preparing consumer credit reports. 37. Indeed, Defendant?s practice is to prepare and sell a consumer credit report using only the name and address of the consumer purportedly applying for credit. OGWQONM-DWNH Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page8 of 20 38. Defendant?s practice is not to require a match to ?full last name and ?rst name; middle initial; full street address; zip code; year of birth; any generational designation; and social security number? before preparing a report that it will attribute to a particular consumer and sell about that same particular consumer. 39. OFAC alert information, as part of the consumer?s ?le and report, is also subject to the maximum possible accuracy standard, as the Third Circuit has specifically advised Trans Union: information included in a consumer report and sold about a consumer falls within the purview of the FCRA, and the ?maximum possible accuracy standard.? Trans Union remains responsible for the accuracy in its reports under the FCRA and it cannot escape that responsibility as easily as it suggests here. Congress clearly intended to ensure that credit reporting agencies exercise care when deciding to associate information with a given consumer, and the record clearly supports the jury's determination that Trans Union did not exercise suf?cient care here.? Cortez, 617 F.3d at 710. 40. In Cortez, Defendant had mixed the plaintiff in the case with the OFAC records of a person with a similar, but not identical name, who was some twenty years younger than that plaintiff. 41. Despite the abundant notice it has regarding the unlawfulness of its practices, Defendant continues to use a ?name only? match in determining whether a given consumer will be reported on his/her Trans Union consumer credit report as an alleged criminal on the OFAC list. 42. Moreover, not even the name only match needs to be an exact match between the actual name of the alleged criminal on the OFAC list and the actual name of the innocent consumer applying for credit. 43. Thus, Defendant will place an OFAC alert on a consumer?s report based solely on a partial name match. Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page9 of 20 44. Defendant continues to employ policies and procedures which frequently allow the information belonging to one consumer to appear in the credit ?le of another. 45. Defendant does so because Defendant always seeks to have some credit information available for sale to its customers (accurate or not), in order to maximize its pro?ts. Defendant thus intentionally employs procedures that maximize the likelihood of match between any credit inquiry and some data in its database about one or more consumers. Defendant thus intentionally compromises accuracy in its efforts to increase sales. 46. Defendant?s reporting of OFAC alert information is not accidental, nor a result of simply negligence, but instead a result of deliberately designed policies and procedures. B. The Experience Of The Representative Plaintiff 47. Plaintiff is but one consumer about whom Defendant sold inaccurate OFAC information which it did not disclose on his ?le. 48. On or about February 27, 2011, Plaintiff applied for an automobile loan at Dublin Nissan. 49. On or about February 27, 2011, Dublin Nissan ordered a Trans Union consumer report for Plaintiff, after obtaining the Plaintiffs name, address, social security number and date of birth, which Plaintiff provided as part of his credit application, and which Dublin Nissan transmitted to Defendant in seeking a credit report about Plaintiff. 50. Defendant sold Dublin Nissan a Trans Union consumer report purportedly about Plaintiff on the same day for a fee. 51. Despite having been provided with Plaintiffs name, address, social security number and date of birth, Defendant used a partial ?name only? match in determining whether Plaintiff was on the OFAC list. 52. Plaintiff was advised by representatives at Dublin Nissan after they reviewed his Trans Union consumer report that it refused to extend him credit since there 8 Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 PagelO of 20 was an alert? on his credit report. Plaintiff understood this to mean that he had been identi?ed as a terrorist. 53. Representatives from Dublin Nissan showed Plaintiff a copy of the Trans Union consumer report they reviewed in making their credit determination and it included the names of two unknown and unrelated individuals, ?Sergio Humberto Ramirez Aguirre? (?Aguirre?) and ?Sergio Alberto Cedula Ramirez Rivera? (?Rivera?), both of whom appear on the United States Department of the Treasury OFAC list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons. 54. Contrary to the information contained in the Trans Union report prepared for and sold to Dublin Nissan, Plaintiff Ramirez is not an individual included on the OFAC list, and is not related to either Aguirre or Rivera. 55. Dublin Nissan refused to extend credit to Mr. Ramirez, since businesses in the United States are generally prohibited from dealing with anyone listed on specially designated national and blocked persons list. See 31 C.F.R. 536.201. 56. Shocked and embarrassed, Mr. Ramirez called Trans Union to dispute Trans Union?s erroneous reporting of his purported inclusion on the OFAC list. 57. Plaintiff was falsely informed by Trans Union representatives that there was no OFAC alert included in his consumer ?le, and that there was no way for him to make a dispute for information that did not appear in his ?le. 58. Mr. Ramirez called Trans Union speci?cally to dispute the OFAC alert included in the consumer report sold about him by Trans Union, but once Trans Union representatives told him he could not dispute OFAC alert, he asked that Trans Union send him a copy of his ?le so that he could verify that there was no OFAC alert being reported about him. 59. Trans Union?s representatives told Plaintiff that the OFAC alert would not be included in his credit ?le when sent to him. Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Pagell of 20 60. Plaintiff thereafter received a Trans Union ?le disclosure, dated February 28, 2011 and mailed to Plaintiff from Defendant?s consumer relations center in Chester, 61. The February 28, 2011 ?le disclosure included Plaintiff?s personal identifying information, his account information, information about inquiries for his credit, including the credit inquiry by Dublin Nissan. 62. Plaintiff?s February 28, 2011 consumer ?le disclosure, however, did not include any OFAC alert or information whatsoever, and thus was not a complete and proper ?le disclosure as required by CRA section 168 63. Upon information and belief, neither Plaintiff nor any of the Class members as set forth below were provided upon request with consumer ?le disclosures which included the false OFAC alert that the Defendant was reporting about them to third parties. 64. As a result of Defendant?s failure to provide Plaintiff with all of the information it maintains and/or sells about him, speci?cally the OF AC alert information, Plaintiff was misled concerning the information that Defendant was reporting about him to third parties and deprived of the opportunity to dispute and correct the inaccurate OFAC alert that Defendant inaccurately associated with him on his report. 65. Several days later, under separate cover, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant?s Woodlyn, facility dated March 1, 2011, ?Regarding: OFAC (Of?ce of Foreign Assets Control) Database? (the ?March 1, 2011 correspondence?). 66. Upon information and belief, Defendant sends this form correspondence only to those consumers, like Plaintiff, who have contacted Defendant about its erroneous reporting of an OF AC alert on their reports, but not to all persons about whom Defendant has sold any report that included an OF AC alert. 67. The March 1, 2011 correspondence sent to Plaintiff Sergio L. Ramirez, born in 1976, stated: ?[t]he OFAC record that is considered a potential match to the name on 10 Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page12 of 20 your credit ?le is. . . Ramirez Aguirre, Sergio Humberto, Tijuana Mexico, date of birth, 1951; and Ramirez Rivera, Sergio Alberto Cedula, Cali Columbia, date of birth, 68. The March 1, 2011 correspondence does not constitute a proper consumer ?le disclosure as de?ned in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(g) and 1681g. 69. The March 1, 2011 correspondence is a standardized form letter, which is customized with the subject consumer?s name and address and which includes the purportedly matching OFAC alert information, but no other public records or credit information relating to that consumer. 70. The March 1, 2011 correspondence contained no summary of rights prepared by the Commission, as required by FCRA 1681g(c)(2)(A) and CCRAA 71. The March 1, 2011 correspondence contained no toll-free telephone number established by the CRA, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours, as required by FCRA 1681g(c)(2)(B) and CCRAA 72. The March 1, 2011 correspondence contained no list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of the FCRA, nor the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, as required by FCRA 1681g(c)(2)(C) and CCRAA 73. The March 1, 2011 correspondence contained no statement that the consumer may have additional rights under state law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a state or local consumer protection agency or a state attorney general (or the equivalent thereof) to learn of those rights, as required by FCRA 1681 and 74. The March 1, 2011 correspondence contained no statement concerning the right of a consumer to dispute information in the ?le of the consumer under section 1681i ofthis title, as required by 15 U.S.C. and CCRAA 11 Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page13 of 20 75. The March 1, 2011 correspondence provides no instructions or methods by which Plaintiff may dispute or request that Trans Union stop selling reports about him with any OFAC alert or information on them. 76. As of result of Defendant?s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost credit opportunity, harm to reputation, and emotional distress. - 77. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant 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 the Defendant herein. 78. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendant, as well as that of its agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.- CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION 79. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following Classes: For Defendant?s violations of FCRA 1681g(a): All persons residing in the United States and its Territories who during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this case had a consumer report sold about them by Trans Union, which included any OFAC record, and to whom Trans Union subsequently sent a ?le disclosure substantially similar in form to the February 28, 2011 ?le disclosure from Defendant to Plaintiff, excluding Sergio Humberto Ramirez Aguirre and Sergio Alberto Cedula Ramirez Rivera. For Defendant?s violations of CCRAA 1785.10: All persons residing in the State of California who during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and 12 Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Pagel4 of 20 continuing through the date of the resolution of this case had a consumer report sold about them by Trans Union, which included any OF AC record, and to whom Trans Union subsequently sent a the disclosure substantially similar in form to the February 28, 2011 file disclosure from Defendant to Plaintiff, excluding Sergio Humberto Ramirez Aguirre and Sergio Alberto Cedula Ramirez Rivera. 80. Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of the following Classes: For Defendant?s violations of FCRA l681g(a) All persons residing in the United States and its Territories to whom, during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this case, Trans Union sent a letter substantially similar in form to the March 1, 2011 correspondence from Defendant to Plaintiff. For Defendant?s violations of CCRAA 1785.10 All persons residing in the State of California to whom, during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this case, Trans Union sent a letter substantially similar in form to the March 1, 2011 correspondence from Defendant to Plaintiff. 81. Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of the following Classes: For Defendant?s violations of FCRA 1681e(b): All persons residing in the United States and its Territories with the first name ?Sergio? and the last name ?Ramirez? who, during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this case, had a 13 Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page15 of 20 consumer report sold about them by Trans Union which included an OFAC record, excluding Sergio Humberto Ramirez Aguirre and Sergio Alberto Cedula Ramirez Rivera. For Defendant?s violations of CCRAA All persons residing in the State of California with the ?rst name ?Sergio? and the last name ?Ramirez? who, during the period beginning two (2) years prior to the ?ling of this Complaint and continuing through the date of the resolution of this case, had a consumer report sold about them by Trans Union which included an OFAC record, excluding Sergio Humberto Ramirez Aguirre and Sergio Alberto Cedula Ramirez Rivera. 82. The Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Although the precise number of Class members is known only to Defendant, Plaintiff avers upon information and belief that the Classes number in the thousands. 83. There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members. The principal questions concern whether the Defendant willfully and/or negligently violated the FCRA and/or the CCRAA by failing to provide consumers with access to all information contained in their consumer ?les, as well as whether the Defendant follows reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in consumers? ?les with respect to OF AC information. 84. Plaintiff?s claims are typical of the claims of the Classes, which all arise from the same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories. 85. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter. Further, Plaintiff has secured counsel experienced in handling consumer class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim. 14 Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page16 of 20 86. This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Classes, as well as a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. 87. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making appropriate ?nal injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the CCRAA Classes each as a whole. 88. Whether Defendant violated the FCRA and/or the CCRAA can be easily determined by Defendant?s policies and a ministerial inspection of Defendant?s business records. 89. A class action is a superior method for the fair and ef?cient adjudication of this controversy. Management of the Classes? claims is likely to present signi?cantly fewer dif?culties than those presented in many individual claims. The identities of the Class members may be derived from Defendant?s records. CLAIMS COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE CRA 8 1681M 90. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 91. Pursuant to section 1681n of the FCRA, Defendant is liable for willfully failing to provide consumers such as Plaintiff, upon request, with all information in the consumer?s ?le in violation of 15 U.S.C. l68lg(a). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and 15 Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Pagel? of 20 the Class against Defendant for statutory and punitive damages for violation of 15 U.S.C. ?1681g, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n; that the Court award costs and reasonable attomey?s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n; and that the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper. COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE CCRAA 8 1785.10 92. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 93. Defendant is a ?consumer credit reporting agency? as de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 94. Plaintiff is a ?consumer? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 95. The above-mentioned credit reports were ?consumer credit reports? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 96. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1785.31, Defendant is liable for violating the CCRAA by failing to provide consumers, upon request, with a copy of their disclosure containing all information on that consumer in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.10 with respect to Plaintiff and the Class. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for damages of $100 to $5,000 per Class member per violation under the that the Court award injunctive relief under the that the Court award costs and reasonable attorney?s fees under the and such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper. COUNT VIOLATIONS OF THE FCRA 1681.240 97. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 16 Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Pagel8 of 20 98. Pursuant to section 1681n of the FCRA, Defendant is liable for willfully failing to provide consumers such as Plaintiff with a summary of their rights, which are required to be included with consumer disclosures, including the right to dispute information contained therein, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681g(c). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for statutory and punitive damages for violation of 15 U.S.C. 168lg, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n; that the Court award costs and reasonable attorney?s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n; and that the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE CCRAA 1785.15?) 99. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 100. Defendant is a ?consumer credit reporting agency? as de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 101. Plaintiff is a ?consumer? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 1785 102. The above-mentioned credit reports were ?consumer credit reports? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 103. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1785.31, Defendant is liable for violating the CCRAA by willfully failing to provide consumers such as Plaintiff with a summary of their rights, which are required to be included with consumer disclosures, including the right to dispute information contained therein, in violation of CCRAA 1785.10, with respect to Plaintiff and the Class. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing l7 Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page19 of 20 Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for damages of $100 to $5,000 per Class member per violation under the that the Court award injunctive relief under the that the Court award costs and reasonable attorney?s fees under the and such other and ?irther relief as may be necessary, just and proper COUNT VIOLATION OF THE FCRA @8140) 104. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 105. Pursuant to sections 1681n and 16810 of the FCRA, Defendant is liable for negligently and willfully failing to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it sold in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 0f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for statutory, actual and punitive damages for violation of 15 U.S.C. ?1681e(b), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. l681n and 16810; that the Court award costs and reasonable attorney?s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 168ln and 16810; and that the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper COUNT VI VIOLATION OF THE CCRAA ?l785.14(b) 106. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein. 107. Defendant is a ?consumer credit reporting agency? as de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 108. Plaintiff is a ?consumer? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 109. The above-mentioned credit reports were ?consumer credit reports? as that term is de?ned by Cal. Civ. Code 18 KDOO?dONm-bmwid Case3:12-cv-00632-JSC Documentl Filed02/O9/12 Page20 of 20 110. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code Defendant is liable for Violating the CCRAA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure ?maximum possible accuracy? of the reports it sold, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.14(b) with respect to Plaintiff and the Class. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class; that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for damages of $100 to $5,000 per Class member per violation under the that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for actual damages under the that judgment be entered for Plaintiff and the Class against Defendant for actual damages under the that the Court award injunctive relief under the that the Court award costs and reasonable attorney?s fees under the and such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper Dated: February 8, 2012 ANDERSON, OGILVIE BREWER, LLP and FRANCIS MAILMAN, LLC By: a; Andrew J. Ogilvie JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues. ANDERSON, OGILVIE BREWER, LLP and FRANCIS MAILMAN, LLC CL 5 By: 7 Andrew J. Ogilvie l9