Alabama Consumer Sues LVNV, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union

We recently filed a lawsuit against the debt buyer/debt collector LVNV after it had sued our client to collect an alleged debt.  LVNV lost the collection lawsuit (it could not prove it owned the debt it claimed our client owed) and then LVNV refused to stop reporting to the credit reporting agencies that our client owed it money.

Hard to say an Alabama consumer owes money when the judge has already ruled on this.

Our client disputed, in writing, by certified mail, the LVNV account being on his credit reports.  The three credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union refused to delete the account even though they knew our client had been sued, had won, and did not owe the debt.

This is a common problem and we discuss it in our page “I Won My Lawsuit!  Now What?” on our site devoted solely to debt collection lawsuits.

Our lawsuit is copied below, or you can click here to read the PDF, but the basic allegations are violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by LVNV, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by all Defendants, and violations of Alabama state law by all Defendants.

Let us know if you have any questions or if you have had similar experiences with LVNV or the credit reporting agencies.  We filed a similar suit a couple of months ago against LVNV, collection lawyers, and Equifax that you can read about here — but we are most interested in YOUR experiences with these companies so contact us or leave a comment below.

Thanks — John Watts

————————–

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for his Complaint against the Defendants states as follows:

1. This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. [hereinafter “FCRA”] and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act[1]  (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. [hereinafter “FDCPA”]), out of state law violations and out of the invasion of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Defendants and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON DEBT BUYER LAWSUITS IN ALABAMA

1. This case represents a growing trend in the debt collection and credit reporting industries.
2. A debt buyer will claim to buy the Plaintiff’s debt for pennies on the dollar.
3. The debt buyer will hire a collection law firm to file the suit.
4. Generally, most consumers default as they assume if a lawsuit has been filed, it must be legitimate.
5. Occasionally, however, the consumer will file an answer and deny owing money.
6. This causes great annoyance and angst for the debt buyer and the collection law firm.
7. The reason is that the debt buyer and the collection lawyer know that in virtually every case they will be unable (or unwilling) to prove that the consumer owes this debt to the debt buyer.
8. This is a reality that the debt buyers and collection lawyers prefer to keep secret from consumers in Alabama.
9. The case gets set for trial.
10. Collection efforts by the collection law firm intensify to try and convince the consumer to settle before going to court.
11. When the trial occurs, the debt buyer does not appear.
12. The collection law firm appears directly or by means of a substitute counsel.
13. The trial happens.
14. A represented consumer will win the case.
15. The debt buyer and collection law firm have 14 days to appeal from an adverse judgment in Alabama Small Claims or Alabama District Court.
16. The debt buyer normally does not appeal.
17. The debt buyer knows that losing its case means, under Alabama law, that the debt is not owed by the consumer to the debt buyer.
18. The collection lawyer knows that losing the case means, under Alabama law, that the debt is not owed by the consumer to the debt buyer.
19. Since the debt is not owed, collection efforts must cease.
20. Since the debt is not owed, credit reporting must cease by the debt buyer, meaning the tradeline reporting on any credit report must be deleted.
21. Normally, however, the debt buyer is not willing to give up.
22. The debt buyer will continue to credit report that the consumer owes the debt.
23. The same debt that a court determined is not owed.
24. Often the consumer will be convinced to pay the non-existent debt to get it off their credit report or to stop the other collection activities.
25. When confronted about their actions, the debt buyer and its agents (including attorneys) will say the false credit reporting was merely an accident caused by one or more of the following (or similar excuses):
26. “A new person was working who improperly coded the file.”
27. “A simple keyboard error occurred that kept the debt alive.”
28. “The credit reporting was simply to give the consumer a chance to pay off a moral obligation but was not really an attempt to collect the debt.”
29. “The debt buyer and/or collection law firm file so many lawsuits, they can’t be expected to keep up with which ones they win and which ones they lose.”
30. “The debt buyer did not even know the collection law firm had filed the suit.”
31. “The collection law firm never told the debt buyer the suit had been lost.”
32. The consumer will sometimes dispute with a consumer reporting agency (such as Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and/or Trans Union) that the debt buyer account the consumer was sued on should not be reporting.
33. The consumer reporting agency will not delete the account, even though it knows it must.
34. Instead, it will ask the debt buyer, which is a paying customer, what it wants done with the account.
35. The debt buyer will normally say to keep the account on the credit reporting.
36. This is one example of the close manner that the credit reporting industry and the debt buying industry work together.
37. When sued over this illegal conduct, the debt buyer will make the excuses listed above.
38. When sued, the consumer reporting agency will blame the consumer.
39. If the consumer did not include a copy of the judgment, the agency will say “If only the consumer had sent us the judgment, then we would have deleted the account.”
40. If, however, the consumer sends the copy of the judgment, the agency will say “You know we can’t accept that.  It might have been forged!”
41. The consumer reporting agency will refuse to contact the court or clerk to find out if the case was won by the consumer.
42. Ultimately, when sued, the debt buyer, and the reporting agency will say “Well, yes, technically this should not have happened but despite losing in court we all know this consumer really did owe the money, so we are allowed to violate multiple state and federal laws.”
43. The Plaintiff in this case disagrees and has brought this case to expose this dark side of the collection and credit reporting industries and how the two industries work hand in hand to abuse consumers across Alabama.

RECOGNITION OF THE WIDESPREAD ABUSE BY COLLECTORS

1. Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors.  15 USC § 1692 is entitled “Congressional findings and declaration of purpose” and it states as follows:

(a)        There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, decep­tive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

(b)        Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c)        Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collec­tion of debts.

(d)       Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub­stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com­merce.

(e)        It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt col­lection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt col­lection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

 

[Emphasis added].

 

PARTIES

 

1. Plaintiff Raymond L. Shaw (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person who is a resident of Alabama, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
2. Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC, (“Defendants” or “LVNV[2]”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business in Alabama.
3. Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendants” or “Equifax[3]“) is a foreign company that engages in the business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit information and does business in Alabama.
4. Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Defendants” or “Trans Union[4]“) is a foreign company that engages in the business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit information and does business in Alabama.
5. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Experian[5]“) is a foreign company that engages in the business of maintaining and reporting consumer credit information and does business in Alabama.
6. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A, B and C being that person, entity or individual who collected on the account or performed any credit reporting activities; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS D, E, and F, being that person, entity or individual who negligently hired, trained and supervised the person or entity charged with collecting on the account or who performed any credit reporting activities; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS G, H, and I, being that person, entity or individual who threatened or did cause harm to Plaintiffs including credit reporting; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS J, K. and L, being that person, entity or individual who committed the wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint. Names of the Fictitious parties are unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time but will be added by amendment when ascertained.
7. Any reference to any Defendant or Defendants includes all fictitiously described defendants as if fully set forth.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Collection Lawsuit

1. On July 18, 2011, Defendant LVNV sued Plaintiff in the Small Claims Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, with a case number of SM-2011-903423.
2. The lawsuit did not identify the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff to Defendant LVNV.
3. As is typical in debt buyer lawsuits in Alabama, the debt buyer failed to identify the debt and merely stated the following two pieces of information:  (1) LVNV as assignee of Sherman Acquisition [a debt buyer] and (2) “DEFENDANT [Plaintiff Shaw] OWES PLAINTIFF [Defendant LVNV] $1,127.10 DUE ON ACCOUNT STATED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF [Defendant LVNV] AND DEFENDANT [Plaintiff Shaw].”
4. The collection complaint by Defendant LVNV was woefully lacking in providing any notice to Plaintiff of the claims asserted, dates involved, or where the alleged debt came from.
5. The design and purpose of this type of improper pleading is to confuse and intimidate consumers such as Plaintiff into paying Defendant LVNV or taking no action and allowing a default judgment to be entered.
6. By examining credit reports, Plaintiff was able to determine that the Defendant LVNV account was supposedly for an HSBC Orchard Bank credit card which, according to the LVNV tradeline had a high balance of $1,127.00.
7. $1,127.00 is the amount Defendant LVNV sued Plaintiff for in the collection case.
8. In this suit, Defendant LVNV asserted it was the owner of a certain debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff.
9. Plaintiff did not and does not owe the debt.
10. Plaintiff’s Answer to the collection lawsuit was filed on August 29, 2011.
11. The Answer stated “Defendant [Plaintiff Shaw] denies owing any money to Plaintiff [Defendant LVNV].”
12. Defendant LVNV received a copy of this denial.
13. Defendants LVNV understood that Plaintiff was refusing to pay on this debt.
14. On September 12, 2011, the state court set the case for trial on October 24, 2011.
15. Notice was sent to Defendant LVNV and Plaintiff.
16. At all times Plaintiff was prepared for trial.
17. Consistent with the lack of any meaningful allegation in the complaint, Defendant LVNV was not prepared for trial at any time.
18. When Defendant LVNV filed the suit, it had no proof that Plaintiff owed Defendant LVNV any money on this account.
19. This surprising fact (although rampant in the debt buyer lawsuit context) did not change at any point in the litigation.

 

 

Defendant LVNV Loses the Collection Lawsuit Against Plaintiff

1. On or about October 24, 2011, the Honorable John E. Amari conducted a trial on the collection lawsuit.
2. An Order was entered on October 26, 2011 by Judge Amari.
3. The Order states “This case coming on for trial, Plaintiff [Defendant LVNV] appears through counsel and Defendant [Plaintiff Shaw] appears through counsel.  Judgment entered by trial for the Defendant [Plaintiff Shaw].  Order announced in open court.”
4. Defendant LVNV knew it had lost the case.
5. Defendant LVNV is not the owner of this alleged debt.

Defendants LVNV Continues to Collect Against

Plaintiff Even After Losing the Collection Lawsuit

 

1. Defendant LVNV has continued collection activities against Plaintiff.
2. These continued collection activities include credit reporting.
3. Based upon information and belief, the continued collection activities include a planned second lawsuit against Plaintiff for this debt.

Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union

Falsely Credit Report the Defendant LVNV Account

 

1. Defendant LVNV reported and has continued to report to the credit reporting agencies that this collection account belongs to Plaintiff.
2. After the victory at trial, Plaintiff disputed directly to Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union explaining what happened at trial.
3. Defendants Equifax, Experian , Trans Union, and LVNV, however, still report this debt on Plaintiff’s credit report.
4. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, and LVNV know this debt is not owed.
5. Plaintiff did not and does not owe this money to Defendant LVNV.
6. The debt being collected is a consumer debt as defined by the FDCPA.
7. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the FDCPA and FCRA.
8. Defendant LVNV is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.
9. Plaintiff requested from Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, and LVNV that the account be deleted from Plaintiff’s credit reports, as Plaintiff did not owe it, per the court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
10. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union were not concerned and did not care about what the state court did in the case as Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union did not intend to perform a reasonable investigation.
11. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union did not perform any type of reasonable investigation.
12. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union notified Defendant LVNV in accordance with the FCRA of the dispute by the Plaintiff.
13. Alternatively, Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union did not properly notify Defendant LVNV and, as a part of this failure, did not include all relevant information provided by Plaintiff in its notification of Defendant LVNV.  This includes notification that the state court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
14. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union and LVNV failed to properly investigate these disputes as if Defendants had properly investigated, the LVNV account would have been deleted.

 

 

Equifax Keeps the False Credit Reporting

1. On or about December 2, 2011, Defendant Equifax issued its results of investigation, which shows the Defendant LVNV’s account remaining on Plaintiff’s credit report with a balance and in collections.
2. Defendants Equifax and LVNV were provided with more than sufficient information in the disputes and in their own internal sources of information (which includes the knowledge of Defendant LVNV through its state court trial counsel that the case was a defeat for Defendant LVNV) to conduct an investigation and to conclude that the account complained of was being reported incorrectly.
3. Defendant Equifax has previously proclaimed that it is obligated to rely upon whatever the public records state about a consumer.
4. For example, had Plaintiff lost the suit and a judgment was entered in favor of Defendant LVNV, and Plaintiff disputed with Equifax, Plaintiff would have been told by Defendant Equifax that it was bound by the state court judgment which says Plaintiff owes the money.

Experian Keeps the False Credit Reporting

1. On or about December 2, 2011, Defendant Experian issued its results of investigation, which shows the Defendant LVNV’s account remaining on Plaintiff’s credit report with a balance and in collections.
2. Defendants Experian and LVNV were provided with more than sufficient information in the disputes and in their own internal sources of information (which includes the knowledge of Defendant LVNV through its state court trial counsel that the case was a defeat for Defendant LVNV) to conduct an investigation and to conclude that the account complained of was being reported incorrectly.
3. Defendant Experian has previously proclaimed that it is obligated to rely upon whatever the public records state about a consumer.
4. For example, had Plaintiff lost the suit and a judgment was entered in favor of Defendant LVNV, and Plaintiff disputed with Experian, Plaintiff would have been told by Defendant Experian that it was bound by the state court judgment which says Plaintiff owes the money.

Trans Union Keeps the False Credit Reporting

1. On or about December 8, 2011, Defendant Trans Union issued its results of investigation, which shows the Defendant LVNV’s account remaining on Plaintiff’s credit report with a balance and in collections.
2. Defendants Trans Union and LVNV were provided with more than sufficient information in the disputes and in their own internal sources of information (which includes the knowledge of Defendant LVNV through its state court trial counsel that the case was a defeat for Defendant LVNV) to conduct an investigation and to conclude that the account complained of was being reported incorrectly.
3. Defendant Trans Union has previously proclaimed that it is obligated to rely upon whatever the public records state about a consumer.
4. For example, had Plaintiff lost the suit and a judgment was entered in favor of Defendant LVNV, and Plaintiff disputed with Trans Union, Plaintiff would have been told by Defendant Trans Union that it was bound by the state court judgment which says Plaintiff owes the money.

Refusal of All Defendants to Correct the Credit Reporting

1. These same Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union, however, refused to rely upon what the state court judge actually said – verdict for Plaintiff.
2. The verdict in favor of Plaintiff means Plaintiff does not owe the money claimed by Defendant LVNV.
3. The state court ruling was a final judgment.
4. This final judgment was not appealed.
5. There is no avenue for appeal for Defendant LVNV of this judgment as the time to appeal has passed.
6. Despite this knowledge, Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union have completely abdicated their obligations under federal and state law and have instead chosen to merely “parrot” whatever their customer, Defendant LVNV, has told them to say.
7. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union know courts have condemned the practice of “parroting” but yet these Defendants continue to do so.
8. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union have a policy to favor the paying customer, in this situation Defendant LVNV, rather than what the consumer or the state court says about a debt.

Reason for Keeping False Information on Credit Reports

1. The primary reason for this wrongful policy is that furnishers in general, and debt collectors specifically, provide enormous financial rewards to Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union.
2. The importance of keeping false information on credit reports is that all the Defendants understand that one of the most powerful methods furnishers (and debt collectors) have to wrench payment from a consumer is by placing and keeping false accounts on the consumer’s credit reports.
3. Defendant LVNV has a policy and procedure to refuse to properly update credit reports of consumers, like Plaintiff, who do not owe the alleged debt.
4. The reason is to keep false information on the credit report.
5. Defendant LVNV has promised through its subscriber agreements or contracts to accurately update accounts but Defendant LVNV has willfully, maliciously, recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently failed to follow this requirement as well as the requirements set forth under the FCRA, FDCPA, and state law, which has resulted in the intended consequences of this information remaining on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
6. Defendant LVNV assumed a duty, through the subscriber agreement and other actions, to accurately report the balances and this duty was breached in a negligent, wanton, reckless, willful, intentional, and/or malicious manner.
7. Defendant LVNV has a policy to “park” its accounts on at least one of the consumer’s credit report.  This is a term in the industry for keeping a false account on the credit report so that the consumer will be forced to pay money in order to obtain a refinancing or to qualify for a loan or to increase the consumer’s credit score from the artificially lowered score which directly resulted from the Equifax, Trans Union, Experian  and LVNV Defendants’ intentional and malicious conduct.
8. In parking or allowing the parking of an account, these Defendants know they are violating their obligations and duties under federal and state law to accurately report the account.
9. Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union know that parking a false account will lead to false and defamatory information being published every time the Plaintiff’s credit report is accessed and this is the malicious and intentional design behind Defendants’ actions with the goal to force the Plaintiff to pay on an account Plaintiff does not owe.
10. Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union maliciously, willfully, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to review the information provided in the disputes and that was already in their files and to conduct a reasonable investigation on Plaintiff’s disputes, which led as a direct result and consequence to Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union either failing to delete information found to be inaccurate, failing to replace the inaccurate information with accurate information, and/or reinserting the information without following the dictates of the FCRA.
11. At all relevant times the Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union failed to maintain and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, concerning the account in question, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and state law.
12. Defendant LVNV failed to properly maintain and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit information and Plaintiff’s credit report, concerning the account in question, thus violating state law and FDCPA as set forth in this Complaint.  These violations occurred before, during, and after the dispute process began with the consumer reporting agencies.

 

 

Summary of Wrongful Conduct

1. Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union understand that combining collection lawsuits with credit reporting results in intense pressure being brought to bear upon an Alabama consumer such as Plaintiff.
2. Defendant LVNV has taken illegal aggressive actions in a continued effort to collect the alleged debt against Plaintiff.  These actions include the continued reporting of the debt to third parties (even after losing the state court trial), including consumer-reporting agencies such as Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union that Plaintiff owes the debt, that Plaintiff defaulted, and that the account was in collections with a balance currently owed.
3. The Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union have failed to maintain Plaintiff’s account with maximum accuracy and these Defendants and Defendant LVNV have failed to properly investigate the account in response to the disputes made by Plaintiff.
4. The conduct of the Defendants has proximately caused Plaintiff past and future monetary loss, past and future damage to Plaintiff’s credit and credit worthiness, past and future mental distress and emotional anguish, and other damages that will be presented to the trier of fact.
5. It is a practice of all of the Defendants to maliciously, willfully, recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently ignore and refuse to follow the requirements of the FDCPA (Defendant LVNV), FCRA (Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union) and state law (all Defendants).
6. All Defendants know their conduct is wrong.
7. For example, Defendant LVNV has been sued multiple times in Alabama for this type of conduct.
8. Defendants Equifax, Trans Union and Experian have been sued multiple times in Alabama for this conduct.
9. Defendant Equifax has a judgment against it in Federal Court in the Northern District of Alabama for this precise wrongful conduct.
10. Significant punitive damages are needed to stop this type of inappropriate behavior from continuing to happen.
11. All actions taken by employees, agents, servants, or representatives of any type for the Defendants were taken in the line and scope of such individuals (or entities’) employment, agency or representation.
12. All actions taken by the Defendants were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that their actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that their actions were taken in violation of the FCRA and/or FDCPA and/or state law and/or that they knew or should have known that their actions were in reckless disregard of the FCRA and/or FDCPA and/or state law.
13. All Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of wrongful and unlawful behavior with respect to accounts and consumer reports and as such all Defendants are subject to punitive damages and statutory damages and all other appropriate measures to punish and deter similar future conduct by these Defendants and similar companies.
14. All Defendants are liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by their employees and agents, including, but not limited to, violations of the FCRA, FDCPA and Alabama tort law, in their attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.

Summary of Legal Claims

1. All of the above-described collection activities made to Plaintiff by Defendant LVNV were made in violation of the FDCPA, including (but not limited to) §§ 1692d; 1692e; 1692e(2); 1692e(4); 1692e(5); 1692e(8); 1692e(10); 1692f; and 1692f(1).
2. The above-detailed conduct by these Defendants in harassing Plaintiff in an effort to collect this debt (directly or indirectly) was also an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy by an intrusion upon seclusion and resulted in actual damages to the Plaintiff.
3. This series of abusive actions by Defendants and their agents caused Plaintiff stress and anguish.
4. Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Trans Union and Experian have violated the FCRA in their willful and negligent violations of their responsibilities to reasonably report on Plaintiff’s credit report and investigate Plaintiff’s dispute(s).
5. All Defendants have repeatedly violated Alabama state law which has proximately caused Plaintiff damages.
6. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal actions by Defendants in the form of anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy.

NEGLIGENT AND WANTON HIRING AND SUPERVISION

1. Defendants negligently and/or wantonly hired, trained, retained, or supervised incompetent agents and employees and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I. (LVNV)

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

 

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
2. The acts and omissions of Defendant LVNV and its agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to §§ 1692d; 1692e; 1692e(2); 1692e(4); 1692e(5); 1692e(8); 1692e(10); 1692f; and 1692f(1).
3. As a result of the violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual or compensatory damages; statutory damages; and reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs, from Defendant LVNV.

COUNT II. (LVNV, EQUIFAX,  EXPERIAN AND TRANS UNION)

VIOLATING THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant Equifax, Experian and Trans Union are “consumer reporting agencies,” as codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
3. Defendant LVNV is an entity who, regularly and in the course of business, furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about its transactions or experiences with any consumer and therefore constitutes a “furnisher,” as codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2.
4. Plaintiff notified Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union directly of a dispute on the Defendant LVNV account’s completeness and/or accuracy, as reported.
5. Defendants Equifax, Experian and Trans Union failed to delete information found to be inaccurate, reinserted the information without following the FCRA, or failed to properly investigate Plaintiff’s disputes.
6. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times Defendant s Equifax, Experian and Trans Union failed to maintain and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, concerning the accounts in question, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union failed to conduct a proper and lawful reinvestigation.  For example, Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union were given notice that the suit was tried with the Plaintiff winning the case, but Defendants LVNV Equifax, Experian and Trans Union apparently failed to review the court file or contact the court or contact counsel for Defendant LVNV.  Other examples will become apparent once discovery is commenced.
8. All actions taken by the Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that their actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that their actions were taken in violation of the FCRA and state law and/or that knew or should have known that their actions were in reckless disregard of the FCRA and state law.
9. All of the violations of the FCRA proximately caused the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint.

COUNT III.  (ALL DEFENDANTS)

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
2. Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Defendants violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
3. Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:

Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

 

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (emphasis added).

1. Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:

It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers’ nonpublic personal information.

 

15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) (emphasis added).

1. Defendants and/or their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and/or falsely credit report and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.
2. Defendants and their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
3. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
4. The conduct of the Defendants and their agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by Defendants which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
5. The false credit reporting by Defendant LVNV, Equifax, Trans Union and Experian naturally resulted in invasions of privacy of Plaintiff.
6. As a result of all intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendants.
7. All acts of Defendants and their agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such Defendants are subject to punitive damages.

COUNT IV. (ALL DEFENDANTS)

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND

SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS

 

1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
2. Defendant LVNV collectors are allowed and encouraged to break the law in order to collect debts.
3. Defendant LVNV is aware of the wrongful conduct of its collectors.
4. Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union know and approve of their incompetent employees and agents who are involved in credit reporting.
5. All Defendants negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, trained, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors and/or credit reporting individuals and/or entities, who were allowed or encouraged to violate the law as was done to Plaintiff, and Defendants are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

COUNT V (ALL DEFENDANTS)

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

1. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
2. Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
3. Defendants violated all of the duties Defendants had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
4. It was foreseeable, and Defendants did in fact foresee it, the actions of Defendants would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
5. Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
6. Defendants invaded the privacy of Plaintiff.
7. Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused the damages set forth in this complaint.
8. As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth in this Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendants LVNV, Equifax, Experian and Trans Union for all damages allowable (including statutory, actual, compensatory, nominal and punitive), costs, expenses, fees, injunctive relief to prevent further violations, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ John G. Watts                                            

John G. Watts (WAT056)

M. Stan Herring (HER037)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:        

Watts & Herring, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19^th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 879-2447

(888) 522-7167 facsimile

john@wattsherring.com

stan@wattsherring.com

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY IN THIS CAUSE.

 

/s/ John G. Watts                                

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serve defendants via certified mail at the following address:

LVNV Funding, LLC

c/o CT Corporation System

2 North Jackson Street

Suite 605

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

 

Equifax Information Services, Inc.

c/o CSC Lawyers Incorporating SVC, Inc.

150 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

 

Trans Union, LLC

c/o Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc.

150 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

c/o CT Corporation System

2 North Jackson Street

Suite 605

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

---