Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Soliciting Thoughts about Teaching Consumer Law | Main | The American Pipe Rule and Successive Class Actions »

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e200d8342beee253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court Grants Fair Credit Reporting Act Petitions:

» Round-Up from SCOTUSblog
[Update] Scott Nelson has a post here at the new Consumer Law and Policy Blog discussing the cases granted dealing with the FCPA Here is an AP wire story regarding the cert. grant in the credit reporting cases. Here is... [Read More]

» Credit Law from Credit Law
[Read More]

Comments

jeffrey johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY E. JOHNSON
AND SHOSHANAH R. JOHNSON
AND TWO MINOR CHILDREN,
Plaintiffs
Vs. NO.___________________________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL



FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION TITLE CORPORATION,
FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION (FAM)
Parker S. Kennedy, Chairman of the Board & Chief Exec. Off.
D.P. Kennedy, Chairman Emeritus
Frank V. McMahon, Vice Chairman
Dennis J. Gilmore, Chief Oper. Off.
Curt A. Caspersen, Exec. V.P.
Ali Azimi, V.P., Operations
Allison Schoening, Sr. V.P. & Chief Fin. Off.
Barry Sando, President
Ben Graboske, Exec. V.P. & Chief Technology Off.
Carie Gaska, Media
Christine Cook, Attorney
Dan Berman, Sr. V.P., Mortgage Analytics
Dianna Serio, Exec. V.P., Data Operations
Gary L. Kermott, Exec. V.P., Title Insurance & Services
Kenneth D. DeGiorgio, Sr. V.P., General Cnsl. & Interim Secy.
Kerry Cook,
Larry Davidson, Pres.
Lucy A. Przybyla, Pres.
Margaret Yonkovich, Sr. V.P. & Chief Fin. Off.
Marjon Ghasemi, Sr. Counsel
Mike T. Henney Sr., Pres., Data Trace
Mitch Wilson, Chief Fin. Off.
Randall P. Gilster, Pres.
Randy J. Kozlowski, Sr. V.P., Field Oper.
Richard D. Roniger, Sr. V.P. & Chief Oper. Off.
John and Jane Does 1-20 (Inclusive)
TO BE DETERMINED DURING THE NORMAL
COURSE OF DISCOVERY

COMES NOW JEFFREY E. JOHNSON, acting in pro se without the benefit of counsel, do hereby file this complaint for injuries and damages in excess of $5,000,000.00 and state as follows:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Plaintiffs, Jeffrey E. Johnson are residents of Buffalo Grove, Illinois in the County of Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is legal owner with his wife of 17 Crestview Terrace, Buffalo Grove, Illinois since June, 2007. At no time herein, has the Plaintiff ever had any judgment, lien, or complaint lodged against him or his property as alleged by the defendants.

2) Defendants First American Title Corporation and their subsidiaries, is a company that does business in all 50 US states and Canada.

3) Defendants and its employees perform many services for banking and lending institutions including Title searches for Citi Group. Currently many institutions are using the vast data bases of First American to determine a consumer’s ability to pay or modify their mortgages.

4) Defendants do business under many DBA’s throughout the country.

5) The initial request for modification of our mortgage was done with Citi Mortgage who requested a title search to their vendor First American (Hereinafter FAM).

6) On August 27, 2008, Citi Mortgage employee Jennifer Herring telephoned Shoshanah Johnson and informed her that her property had liens and judgments on the property in her husband’s name Jeff Johnson. These judgments were contained in the report issued by the defendants FAM in their report dated August 21, 2008 and Issued by First American Loss Mitigation Title Services of Santa Ana, California. The following were stated verbally by Jennifer Herring to Plaintiff S. Johnson at approximately 9am on 8-27:
1. Tax lien by the State of Illinois in the amount of $399.43 recorded on 6-28-1996 against the property the Plaintiff’s own at 17 Crestview terrace, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089.
2. A judgment 8-1-2005 in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Jeffrey Johnson by Nationwide Insurance for $2,839.12.
3. A judgment 10-14-2005 in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Jeff Johnson by Palisades Collections for $11,003.88.
4. A federal tax lien in favor of the United States recorded 5-18-2006 for $5,079.30 against Jeffrey Johnson.
Mrs. Johnson immediately felt the possibility that her husband was not who he had said he was. Plaintiff Jeff Johnson took the phone from his wife and informed Citi that this could not have been him. He then called Nationwide and his attorney Michael Samuels. Mr. Samuels informed him that his title was free and clear and faxed the title insurance to prove it. Nationwide faxed a letter to the plaintiffs on 8-27-2008 which informed all those who had issued this report no judgments or claims were placed on our names and/or property by Nationwide.

Jeff Johnson immediately telephoned FAM in Santa Ana and after several tries, was connected to Kerry Cook who is employed at FAM and she informed Plaintiff Johnson that she stood by her report and would not change it regardless of any corrective information. Defendant Cook and Chairman Parker S. Kennedy and Barry Sando were immediately faxed all information regarding that none of this information was neither correct nor true. Nevertheless, defendants “stood by their report….”
Defendant Carie Gaska was contacted by an associated press reporter and her office corrected the information after the contemplation of exposure by national media outlets.

7) Plaintiffs disputed the error to Citi by fax and e-mails and Citi has since settled the matter with a confidential settlement and a statement that if they were sued, they would sue FAM as they are the vendor to Citi and its mortgage arm.

8) Plaintiffs disputed the error to FAM in writing and fax.

9) On August 27, 2008, Jennifer Herring issued a letter stating that based on the information provided to them by defendants FAM that the request to modify our loan was being disapproved.

10) Plaintiff begun to suffer doubts about their marriage and began counseling immediately due to this episode with the defendants.

11)Plaintiff began to speak with multiple attorneys for FAM who informed plaintiff Jeff Johnson that they would settle the matter.

12) On September 12, 2008, Jeff Johnson spoke with counsel for the defendants and she believed that the Johnsons we represented by counsel and she could no longer speak with us.

13) Over 100 communications were exchanged between FAM and the plaintiff.

14-25) RESERVED FOR AMMENDED COMPLAINT


COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

26) Plaintiff re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 25 here-in above.

27) According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, section 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]:
(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.
(1) Prohibition.

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.
(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if
(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and
(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.
(2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who
(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and
(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.
(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];
(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.
(2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.

28-29) RESERVED (FOR ADDITIONAL COUNTS OF VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

30) According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n], (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) (A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

THEREFORE Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for damages of $1,000 plus costs and fees and respectfully ask this Court for leave to move for punitive damages.

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

31) Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 30 here-in above.

32) According to section 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.
(1) Prohibition.

(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate.
(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if
(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and
(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.
(2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who
(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and
(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (NOT ISSUED BY FAM AT ANY TIME)

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.
(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];
(C) report the results of the investigation to the client; and
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.
(2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information.

33) The FAM report dated August 21, 2008, of Plaintiff, does not show any supporting documentation from Cook County who has since advised they did not release this information to FAM.

34) According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n], (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) (A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

THEREFORE Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for damages of $1,000 plus costs and fees and respectfully ask this Court for leave to move for punitive damages in the amount to exceed $5,000,000.00. This punitive action will help the public from companies doing business in this current economy from combining multitudes of information without factual basis nor was the information ever requested.

Plaintiffs request a jury trial.

COUNT III – LOSS OF OPORTUNITY

35) Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 34 here-in above.

36) As a result of the defendants’ conduct, actions, and inaction, the plaintiffs, who in fact had a fair-good credit history, was unable to secure credit at favorable rates and was denied credit by CITI.

37) As a result of defendants’ conduct, actions and inaction, the plaintiffs, was unable to secure favorable credit privileges. As a result, the plaintiffs incurred interest and finance charges relating to credit far in excess of what they would have otherwise incurred had the plaintiff been able to secure credit with CITI.

38) As a result of the defendants’ conduct, actions and inaction, the plaintiffs, was forced to take time off work due to the inaccurate report issued by the defendants.

39) As a result of the defendants’ conduct, actions and inaction, the Plaintiffs became doubtful of their marriage and their vows and had to enter counseling to save their marriage as well as extreme mental anguish and emotional distress, humiliation, and damage to their reputation for credit worthiness.

40) The defendants’ conduct, actions and inactions were willful, with reckless disregard, rendering the defendant’s liable for punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the court pursuant to 15 U.S.C.§ 1681n.

THEREFORE Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages plus costs and fees and respectfully ask this Court for leave to move for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs request a jury trial.

COUNT IV – DEFAMATION

41) Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 40 here-in above.

42) The defendants knew the statements were false when made or had no factual basis for making the statements. The defendants knew this because the Cook County Assessor’s Office does not allow this information to be released.

43) The written publications by the defendants constitute libel per se.

44) As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ defamation, the Plaintiffs have suffered extreme mental anguish, a loss of reputation, and a loss of ability to obtain credit.

45) The defendants’ acts were malicious, willful, and wanton and to the total disregard of Plaintiff’s just rights.

THEREFORE Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages plus costs and fees and respectfully ask this Court for leave to move for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs request a jury trial.

COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE

46) Plaintiffs re-allege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 45 here-in above.

49) Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]

(a) In general. Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of

(1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure;

(2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.
(b) Attorney's fees. On a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

50) The defendants had a duty of reasonable care not to injure the Plaintiff (my wife's name), privacy, general reputation, or credit reputation.

51) Between August to present, the defendants have negligently violated their duty of reasonable care .

52) As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiffs have suffered extreme mental anguish, a loss of reputation, and a loss of ability to obtain credit.

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs have suffered economic and psychological damages as a result of the negligence of Defendants and are entitled to reimbursement and compensation for their injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for economic and psychological damages as well as compensatory damages plus costs and fees and respectfully ask this Court for leave to move for punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, for the purposes of a verified complaint, the plaintiffs attest under the penalty of perjury 28 USC 1746 that the above is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
Jeffrey E. Johnson

davidbaer

Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.


www.onlineuniversalwork.com

dental care

i like this part of the blog:"The cases arise from the use of credit reports by insurance companies in setting premiums when new applicants apply for policies. The companies charge higher premiums for applicants with lower credit ratings, but do not disclose these increased charges as "adverse actions." The Ninth Circuit found that under the plain meaning of the statute, these increases were adverse actions that required disclosure under the statute, and that the plaintiffs could proceed with claims that the nondisclosure was willful." is very good, you should add some pictures....

buy wholesale

Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30