Pennsylvania Complaint Against CSC Credit Services, PHH Mortgage Corporation for Violations of the FCRA regarding False and Inaccurate Reporting

July 12th, 2012 by krista


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 John Doe

          Plaintiff, 

v.

 CSC CREDIT SERVICES, INC. and PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

          Defendants.

 

))))

)

)

  Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NON-ARBITRATION

  1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer,  against CSC Credit Services, Inc. and PHH Mortgage Corporation (collectively “Defendants”), 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 residing in Missouri.
  2. Defendant CSC Credit Services, Inc. (“CSC”) is a business entity that regularly conducts business in the State of New Jersey, and which has a principal place of business located at 62 N. Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, TX 77060.
  3. Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”) is a business entity that regularly conducts business in the State of New Jersey and which has a principal place of business located at 2001 Bishops Gate Drive, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054.

JURISDICTION & Venue

  1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 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 Allegations

Defendants have been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history to third parties (the “inaccurate information”).

  1. The inaccurate information includes, but is not limited to, an account with PHH Mortgage Corporation.
  2. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s credit worthiness.  The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the Plaintiff.
  3. Defendants have been reporting the inaccurate information through the issuance of false and inaccurate credit information and consumer credit reports that they have disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, both known and unknown.
  4. Plaintiff has disputed the inaccurate information with Defendant by written communications to their representatives and by following CSC’s established procedures for disputing consumer credit information.
  5. Plaintiff has disputed the inaccurate information with CSC since December 2011.
  6. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s efforts, CSC sent Plaintiff correspondence indicating their intent to continue publishing the inaccurate information and CSC continue to publish and disseminate such inaccurate information to other third parties, persons, entities and credit grantors.  CSC has repeatedly published and disseminated consumer reports to such third parties from at least March 2011 through the present.
  7. Despite Plaintiff’s efforts, CSC has never:  (1) contacted Plaintiff to follow up on, verify and/or elicit more specific information about Plaintiff’s disputes; (2) contacted any third parties that would have relevant information concerning Plaintiff’s disputes; (3) forwarded any relevant information concerning Plaintiff’s disputes to the entities originally furnishing the inaccurate information; or (4) requested or obtained any credit applications, or other relevant documents from the entities furnishing the inaccurate information.
  8. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s disputes, PHH has also failed to conduct timely and reasonable investigations of Plaintiff’s disputes after being contacted by the relevant credit reporting agencies concerning Plaintiff’s disputes, has willfully continued to report such inaccurate information to various credit reporting agencies, and has failed to mark the above accounts as disputed.
  9. Despite Plaintiff’s exhaustive efforts to date, Defendants have nonetheless deliberately, willfully, intentionally, recklessly and negligently repeatedly failed to perform reasonable reinvestigations of the above disputes as required by the FCRA, have failed to remove the inaccurate information, have failed to report on the results of its reinvestigations to all credit reporting agencies, have failed to note the disputed status of the inaccurate information and have continued to report the derogatory inaccurate information about the Plaintiff.
  10. As of result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages in the form of lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress, including humiliation and embarrassment.
  11. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their 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.
  12. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the 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 – CSC

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, CSC “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 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, CSC is liable to the Plaintiff for willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements imposed on a consumer reporting agency of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e and 1681i.
  6. The conduct of CSC is a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, CSC is liable to 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 II – PHH

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 PHH was a “person” as that term defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b).
  3. PHH violated sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA by willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements imposed on furnishers of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
  4. PHH’s conduct was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial factor, in causing the serious injuries, damages and harm to the Plaintiff that are outlined more fully above, and as a result PHH is liable to compensate Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as such other relief, permitted by law.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

40.       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:

(a)                Actual damages;

(b)               Statutory damages;

(c)                Punitive damages;

(d)               Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o; and

(e)                Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

BY:        /s/ Mark Mailman                            

MARK MAILMAN, ESQUIRE

GREGORY GORSKI, ESQUIRE

Land Title Building, 19th Floor

100 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19110

(215) 735-8600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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.