Georgia Complaint Against Alliance Screening, LLC and RealPage Inc. for Mixing Criminal Records of One Consumer to Another

October 19th, 2012 by krista

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

 

 JOHN DOE 

 

          Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

ALLIANCE SCREENING, LLC and REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASING DESK

 

          Defendants.

)) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Civil Action No.: 

 

 

 

 

 

 COMPLAINT

  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.

THE PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in  Woodstock, Georgia.
  2. Defendant, Alliance Screening, LLC (hereafter “Alliance”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Northern District of Georgia and which has a principal place of business located 2909 Cole Ave., Ste. 230, Dallas, TX 75204.
  3. Defendant, RealPage, Inc. d/b/a Leasing Desk (‘RealPage”) is a consumer reporting agency that regularly conducts business in the Northern District of Georgia and which has a principal place of business located at 4000 International Pkwy, Carrollton, TX 75007.

JURISDICTON 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).

FACTUAL ALLIGATIONS

  1.  Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s criminal history to third parties (“inaccurate information”).
  2. The inaccurate information includes, but is not limited to a domestic violence felony charge and a possession felony charge against Plaintiff, but instead the inaccurate information belongs to another person whom Plaintiff does not know and is of no relation to Plaintiff.
  3. Defendants, however, have been inaccurately reporting these charges on Plaintiff’s consumer report.
  4. Defendants have 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.
  5. Specifically, Plaintiff applied for and was denied employment as a truck driver and was denied an apartment rental .
  6. The basis for these denials was the inaccurate information that appears on Plaintiff’s consumer reports, which was a substantial factor for the denials.
  7. Plaintiff further received no contemporaneous notice from Defendant Allied Screening in connection with the application that public record information was being reported about Plaintiff at the time it sold a credit report about Plaintiff for employment purposes in compliance with 15 U.S.C § 1681k.
  8.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost employment and apartment opportunities, harm to reputation, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
  9.  At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were 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 Defendants herein.
  10. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants, as well as that of their agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.

COUNT I – ALLIANCE SCREENING

VIOLATIONS OFTHE FCRA

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.18. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was a “person” and “consumer reporting agency” as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b) and (f).
  2.  At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
  3.  At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
  4.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendant is liable to 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)
  5.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to provide notice to Plaintiff that public record information was being reported for employment purposes in violation of 15 U.S.C  § 1681k.
  6.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to employ strict procedures to ensure that public record information is complete and up to date, in violation of 15 U.S.C  § 1681k.
  7. The conduct of Defendant 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, Defendant is 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.

COUNT I I – REALPAGE

VIOLATIONS OF THE FCRA

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth at length herein.
  2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant 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, the 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 credit 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, Defendant is liable to 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 Defendant 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, Defendants is 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.

Jury Trial Demand

  1.  Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Prayer for Relief

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

  1. Actual damages;
  2. Statutory damages;
  3. Punitive damages;
  4.  Costs and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o;

Respectfully Submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiff


3 Responses

  1. I’m currently trying to get into an apartment. I was recently denied due to a false claim that I have a criminal background. I’ve never spent a day in jail. I’ve never been fingerprinted. I totally don’t understand. I’m currently requesting a copy of the research, so I can make plans on how to proceed.

  2. James G Arnold says:

    I was the victim of an identity theft, involving state and federal agencies. I now have been denied housing by a company in Long Beach, Ca. I wish to take the most appropriate legal action against this agency.

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.