Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HELEN STOKES,
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REALPAGE, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C. A. No. 15-

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I.
1.

Preliminary Statement

This is a consumer class action brought for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (FCRA). Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of consumers
nationwide who have been the subject of misleading and inaccurate background reports sold by
the Defendant RealPage, Inc. (RealPage) to landlords. In violation of FCRA section 1681e(b),
Defendant has adopted and maintained a policy and practice of failing to timely update the criminal
record information it maintains to eliminate records of cases that have been expunged, thus not
accurately reflecting the final disposition of these cases. Furthermore, Defendant systemically
violates FCRA section 1681g(a) by failing to provide complete and accurate disclosures of all
information Defendant maintains about consumers to those consumers upon request.
Defendant’s practices harms consumers seeking residential leases by prejudicing their
prospective landlords with inaccurate adverse information, depriving consumers of valuable
congressionally-mandated information, and harms interstate commerce as a whole.

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 14

II.
2.

Parties

Plaintiff Helen Stokes is an adult individual who resides in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.
3.

Defendant RealPage, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts

business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and which maintains a principal place of business
at 4000 International Parkway, #1000, Carrolton, TX 75007-1913.
III.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4.

Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. §1331.

5.

Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
IV.

A.

Factual Allegations

Defendant’s Practices As A Consumer Reporting Agency
6.

At all times pertinent hereto, RealPage was a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as

defined by section 1681a(f) of the FCRA.
7.

Among other things, the FCRA regulates the collection, maintenance, and

disclosure of consumer credit report information by CRAs, including public record information.
8.

Defendant obtains distilled and incomplete public record information, including

criminal record history, from third party databases and courthouses and maintains such data in
consumer files that it creates and assembles.
9.

Defendant sells such consumer files to landlords wishing to investigate the

background of consumers applying for residential leases.
10.

As a CRA, Defendant is required to follow reasonable procedures to assure

maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report
relates. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

2

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 14

11.

Further, the FCRA unambiguously requires CRAs such as Defendant to clearly and

accurately disclose to consumer all information that the CRA maintains about them, including the
sources that supplied the information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a); Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617
F.3d 688, 711-12 (3d Cir. 2010); Dennis v. Trans Union, LLC, 2014 WL 5325231 (E.D. Pa. Oct.
20, 2014).
12.

Defendant does not, however, maintain reasonable procedures designed to assure

maximum possible accuracy. Based upon a common policy and practice, Defendant regularly and
illegally reports criminal records that have been expunged, sealed, or otherwise removed by court
order. In some situations, the report of an expunged case deprives the individual of a report that
he has no criminal record.
13.

Defendant also fails, as a matter of common policy and procedure, to provide

consumers who request file disclosures with all information Defendant maintains about the
requesting consumer, including never disclosing to consumers the source of the criminal record
information it collects and reports about them.
14.

Defendant’s practices not only violate the FCRA as a matter of law, the practices

exact serious consequences on consumer job applicants and interstate commerce. Consumers who
have obtained the deletion of negative background history are prejudiced in their ability to obtain
leased housing despite the fact that negative information no longer appears in the public record,
and are deprived of complete information regarding the nature and source(s) of the information
Defendant maintains and sells about them.

3

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 14

B.

The Experience Of The Representative Plaintiff
15.

Helen Stokes is 63 years old. She never had any criminal justice involvement until

September, 2008, after which she was arrested twice on criminal charges that arose from her
deteriorating marriage.
16.

In September of 2008, Ms. Stokes was arrested in connection with a domestic

dispute and charged with aggravated assault and other lesser charges. The charges were dismissed
for lack of evidence.
17.

In June of 2010, Ms. Stokes was arrested for theft offenses after taking her

husband’s ATM card from their joint bank account. The charges were subsequently withdrawn.
18.

The records of both offenses appeared under Ms. Stokes married name of Helen

Marie Davis. Ms. Stokes resumed her maiden name Stokes after her divorce.
19.

These two cases were Ms. Stokes’s only arrests. She has never been convicted of

a crime.
20.

By Orders of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, dated March 31,

2014, the records of both the 2008 and 2010 arrests and charges were ordered expunged (the
Expungement Orders).

Certified copies of the Expungement Orders were served on the

Philadelphia Police Department, the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), the Administrative Office
of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) Expungement Unit, and the First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, Data Processing Unit.
21.

The Expungement Orders required the arresting agency to destroy or deliver to Ms.

Stokes or her representative all criminal records, fingerprints, photographic plates and photographs
pertaining to the charges which resulted from the arrests, and also ordered the PSP to request the

4

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 14

Federal Bureau of Investigation to return to them all records pertaining to the arrest, which were
ordered to be destroyed upon receipt.
22.

The 2008 and 2010 arrests of Ms. Stokes were removed from the AOPC database

within days of the entry of the Expungement Orders.
23.

On June 10, 2014, the PSP certified that all criminal record history pertaining to the

2008 and 2010 arrests of Ms. Stokes was expunged from their files.
24.

On June 23, 2014, the Philadelphia Police Department certified that all criminal

record history pertaining to the 2008 and 2010 arrests of Ms. Stokes was expunged from their files.
25.

Since the implementation of the Expungement Orders, Ms. Stokes has had a clear

criminal record.
26.

After separating from her husband, Ms. Stokes no longer had enough income to

maintain her house. Consequently, the house went into foreclosure proceedings. As a result of
her impending need to leave her house, Ms. Stokes has actively sought senior housing.
27.

In or around October 2014, Ms. Stokes applied for a residential lease at Greenway

Presbyterian Apartments (Greenway), a senior housing facility, in Philadelphia, PA.
28.

On or about October 20, 2014, in connection with Ms. Stokes’s application,

RealPage prepared and sold a consumer report about Ms. Stokes to Greenway.
29.

The October 20, 2014 report improperly and inaccurately reported both the 2008

and 2010 arrests and charges that had been expunged in March 2014.
30.

The public sources of information in Pennsylvania from which CRAs such as

RealPage can obtain information used for criminal background checks are court records
maintained by AOPC and law enforcement records maintained by the central repository of the
PSP.

5

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 6 of 14

31.

In Pennsylvania, criminal court records are made publicly available at no cost and

with no restrictions in a database maintained by AOPC and available on its website. These records
can be accessed by anyone within seconds from the AOPC website.
32.

By contrast, a request for information from the PSP database costs $10.00.

Moreover, if the person’s record shows arrests or convictions, there will not be a response for at
least two to three weeks, and often longer. For these reasons, CRAs seldom order or wait for PSP
records before generating a background check, unless the job for which a person is being screened
requires a PSP record check as a matter of law.
33.

AOPC also provides for bulk purchases of its criminal record information. CRAs

as a matter of general practice use the AOPC database as their public source of criminal history
data in Pennsylvania.
34.

As a general practice, expunged criminal charges in Philadelphia are hidden from

public view in AOPC’s database within days of an expungement order. They are completely
eliminated from the database that is provided to bulk purchasers shortly thereafter.
35.

As part of its bulk sale of criminal record information, and in a concentrated effort

to avoid the reporting of expunged records, the AOPC also provides a “LifeCycle file” on a weekly
basis. The LifeCycle file contains a list of cases that bulk data subscribers must remove from their
databases, including expunged cases. In other words, AOPC specifically identifies expunged cases
to the purchasers of its bulk data so that they and their downstream users will remove the cases
from their databases.
36.

AOPC’s contract with its bulk data subscribers requires them to retrieve and access

the LifeCycle file. Failure to comply can result in termination of the contract.

6

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 7 of 14

37.

Upon information and belief, Ms. Stokes’s expunged charges were removed from

public view in AOPC’s database within days of the March 31, 2014 Expungement Orders. They
were removed entirely from the database shortly thereafter.
38.

As of the removal from public view of the expunged charges from AOPC’s

database accessible on AOPC’s website, any preparer of a background check that maintained
reasonable procedures to assure accuracy would have been aware that it was no longer appropriate
to report the expunged charges.
39.

Even if a preparer were to rely instead on bulk data obtained from AOPC, the

preparer would know that expunged charges had been eliminated if it properly updated its
database, through application of the LifeCycle file or otherwise.
40.

Defendant reported the expunged charges on Ms. Stokes’s background check report

more than six months after these cases had been hidden from public view, eliminated from AOPC’s
database, and reported for deletion in a LifeCycle file.
41.

In preparing a report on Ms. Stokes in October 2014, Defendant did not search any

public records in which Ms. Stokes’s charges had not yet been expunged. Ms. Stokes’s charges
had been eliminated from all public records by that time.
42.

Instead, Defendant reported the expunged cases from its database, or from the

database of a third-party vendor, without any effort to learn whether those cases had been
expunged.
43.

As a result of the inaccurate report, Greenway denied Ms. Stokes’s rental

application.
44.

Ms. Stokes pressed Greenway for the source of the consumer report that had been

used to turn her down for housing based on her criminal record. By letter dated December 23,

7

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 8 of 14

2014, Greenway identified RealPage to Ms. Stokes as the source of the report. However,
Greenway did not provide a copy of the report to her.
45.

On January 8, 2015, with the assistance of counsel, Ms. Stokes requested from

RealPage a copy of the consumer report that it had provided to Greenway.
46.

On January 9, 2015, a representative of RealPage contacted Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes

explained that she believed that RealPage had improperly reported her expunged cases to
Greenway, although she had not been able to obtain a copy of the report by that time. RealPage
understood this discussion to be a dispute under Section 1681i of the FCRA.
47.

On January 14, 2015, RealPage sent Ms. Stokes’s counsel corrected copies of the

consumer report prepared for Greenway and two other apartment complexes. However, it did not
provide the original inaccurate report.
48.

In or around January 2015, Ms. Stokes applied for a residential lease at the Scottish

Rite Tower, another senior housing facility, in Philadelphia, PA.
49.

On or about January 13, 2015, and after Ms. Stokes had made her dispute of the

report provided to Greenway, RealPage prepared and sold a consumer report about Ms. Stokes to
Scottish Rite Tower which, like the report sold to Greenway, improperly included the expunged
arrests from 2008 and 2010.
50.

As a result of the inaccurate report, Scottish Rite Tower denied Ms. Stokes’s rental

application.
51.

In late January, 2015, Ms. Stokes requested a complete copy of her consumer file.

52.

On February 3, 2015, RealPage sent Ms. Stokes a document purporting to be a file

disclosure that did not contain any criminal history information.

8

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 9 of 14

53.

On February 18, 2015, counsel for Ms. Stoke made a second request for a full file

disclosure. That same day, RealPage again sent Ms. Stokes a document purporting to be a “full
file disclosure” and that did finally show that it had reported the expunged cases to Greenway and
Scottish Rite Tower, but that failed to disclose all of the information RealPage maintains about
her, including failing to identify the source of the criminal records previously reported to
Greenwood and Scottish Rite Tower about Ms. Stokes.
54.

RealPage’s failure to provide a full file disclosure was harmful to Ms. Stokes,

because she was not entitled to a pre-adverse action notice and copy of the report before the senior
housing facilities made their decisions on her rental applications, because this legal obligation
applied only when a consumer report is obtained for employment purposes. See 15 U.S.C. §
1681b(b). Consequently, by failing to respond immediately and correctly to Ms. Stokes’s request
for all information that RealPage maintained about her, RealPage impeded her from trying to
advocate on her own behalf to try to obtain admission into the senior housing that she so
desperately needs.
55.

At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant’s conduct was a result of its deliberate

policies and practices, was willful, and carried out in reckless disregard for a consumer’s rights as
set forth under sections 1681e(b) and 1681g(a) of the FCRA, and further assumed an unjustifiably
high risk of harm.
56.

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.

9

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 10 of 14

V.
57.

Class Action Allegations

Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action, pursuant to Rules 23(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Classes:
(a)

Expungement Class: All natural persons with an address in the United States and
its Territories about whom, beginning two years prior to the filing of this Complaint
and continuing through the resolution of this action, Defendant prepared a consumer
report which included information regarding one or more criminal case which had
been expunged, sealed, or otherwise removed from public dissemination at the time
the report was prepared.

(b)

Disclosure Class: All natural persons with an address in the United States and its
Territories who, beginning two years prior to the filing of this Complaint and
continuing through the resolution of this action, made a request to Defendant which
constituted or which Defendant treated as a request for a full file disclosure, and to
whom Defendant sent a document which did not include all of the information
Defendant maintained about the requesting consumer.

58.

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 numbers in the thousands. Defendant sells criminal history
record information to thousands of businesses throughout the country, and its reports to such
businesses are standardized, form documents, produced by the same practices and procedures
applicable to all subjects of the reports. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant
prepares and sends its disclosures to consumers using standardized policies and procedures.
59.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over

any questions affecting only individual Class members. The principal question with respect to the
Expungement Class is whether Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possibly accuracy of the information contained in its reports
with respect to the removal of expunged or sealed cases. This principal question with respect to
the Disclosure Class is whether Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide all of the

10

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 11 of 14

information it maintains about consumers upon request, including the source(s) of criminal record
information.
60.

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.
61.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiff is

committed to vigorously litigating this matter and has retained counsel experienced in handling
class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel
has any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim.
62.

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.
63.

A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
claims against Defendant is slight because the maximum statutory damages are limited to between
$100 and $1,000 under the FCRA.

Management of the Class claims is likely to present

significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many individual claims. The identities of
the Class members may be obtained from Defendant’s records.

11

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 12 of 14

VI.

Claims

Count One – FCRA Section 1681e(b) (Class Claim)
64.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at

length herein.
65.

At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was a “person” and “consumer reporting

agency” (CRA) as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(b) and (f).
66.

At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined

by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
67.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for

willfully and/or recklessly failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom a consumer report relates, in
violation of section 1681e(b).
Count Two – FCRA Section 1681g(a) (Class Claim)
68.

Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at

length herein.
69.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for

willfully and/or recklessly failing to provide a complete copy all of the information on her file
upon request, in violation of FCRA section 1681g(a).

VII.
70.

Jury Trial Demand

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

12

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 13 of 14

VIII.

Prayer For Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in her favor for the following:
(a)

That an order be entered certifying the proposed Classes under Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the Classes;
(b)

That an order be entered declaring that Defendant’s actions as described above are

in violation of the FCRA;
(c)

That judgment be entered against Defendant for statutory damages in the amount

of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation per Class member or for actual
damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a);
(d)

That judgment be entered against Defendant for actual damages, pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1681o(a);
(e)

That judgment be entered against Defendant for punitive damages pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2);
(f)

That the Court award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1681n and 1681o; and
(g)

That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
Dated: March 25, 2015

BY:

/s/ James A. Francis
JAMES A. FRANCIS
JOHN SOUMILAS
DAVID A. SEARLES
LAUREN KW BRENNAN
Land Title Building, 19th Floor
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
T: (215) 735-8600
13

 Case 2:15-cv-01520-JP Document 1 Filed 03/25/15 Page 14 of 14

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
SHARON M. DIETRICH
1424 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T: (215) 981-3700
Attorneys for Plaintiff

14