California Complaint Against ON-SITE, LLC, a Consumer Reporting Agency for Issuing False Eviction Record that Caused Consumer to be Denied Apartment

October 19th, 2012 by krista

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 JOHN DOE,  

          Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

ON-SITE, LLC

 

         Defendant.

))) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

    

Complaint for Violations of    Fair Credit Reporting Act

 

Demand for Jury Trial

 

 I.  Preliminary Statement  

  1.  This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereafter the “FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., as amended.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

  1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.
  2. Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
  3. Plaintiff  is an adult individual residing in Folsom, California.

III. Parties 

  1. Defendant On-Site, LLC (hereafter “On-Site”) is consumer reporting

agency which regularly does business in the Central District of California and which has a principal place of business located at 307 Orchard City Drive, Suite 110, Campbell, CA 95008.

IV. Factual Allegations

  1. On-Site has been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s purported credit history to third parties (hereafter the “inaccurate information”).
  2. The inaccurate information includes an eviction record that does not belong to Plaintiff.
  3. Defendant On-Site, however, has been inaccurately reporting this eviction record that belongs to another individual whom Plainitff’s does not know and is of no relation to Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s consumer report.
  4. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon the Plaintiff reputation.
  5. On-Site has been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate consumer reports that it has disseminated and resold to various persons, both known and unknown.
  6. Plaintiff applied for and was denied an apartment with Folsom Ranch Apartment (“Folsom”) on or around July 21, 2012.
  7. The basis for this apartment denial was the inaccurate information that appears on Plaintiff’s consumer report with On-Site, which was a substantial factor for the denial.
  8. Plaintiff further received no notice from On-Site in connection with the application that public record information was being reported about Plaintiff to Folsom.
  9. As a result of On-Site’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost rental opportunity, harm to reputation, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
  10. At all times pertinent hereto, On-Site 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 On-Site herein.
  11. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of On-Site, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for the FCRA and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

V.   First Claim for Relief – ON-SITE     

   Violation of FCRA  

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
  2. At all times pertinent hereto, On-Site was a “person” and “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and (f).
  3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
  4. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
  5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15 U.S.C. §1681o, On-Site is liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s consumer report, information and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).
  6. The conduct of On-Site was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, On-Site liable to the Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with the attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

VI. 

Jury Trial Demand 

  1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

 VII.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against the Defendant, based on the following requested relief:

  1. Actual damages;
  2. Statutory damages;
  3. Punitive damages;
  4. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o; and
  5. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

___________________

Stephanie R. Tatar

The Tatar Law Firm
3500 West Olive Avenue
Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (888) 778-5695


Share your experience or comments

Francis & Mailman, P.C. is not responsible for the creation or development of the below comments and does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein.