Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wolford v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 20, 2017

DANIEL C. WOLFORD, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and TRANS UNION LLC, Defendants.

          Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. Miles N. Clark, Esq. KNEPPER & CLARK LLC David H. Krieger, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC Counsel for Plaintiff.

          Bradley T. Austin, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP Counsel for Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC.

          Jennifer L. Braster, Esq. Andrew J. Sharples, Esq. NAYLOR & BRASTER Andrew Michael Cummings, Esq. JONES DAY Counsel for Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

          Jason Revzin, Esq. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Counsel for Defendant Trans Union LLC.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), LR 7-1, and LR IA 6-2, the parties have stipulated to Plaintiff filing his proposed First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         ORDER GRANTING

         STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must file the First Amended Complaint on or December 29, 2017.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         Exhibit 1

         Proposed First Amended Complaint

         FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, ET SEQ. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

         Jurisdiction and Venue

         1. This Court has federal question jurisdiction because this case arises out of violation of federal law. 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. §1331; Smith v. Community Lending, Inc., 773 F.Supp.2d 941, 946 (D. Nev. 2011).

         2. This action arises out of each Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681(x) (“FCRA”).

         3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff is a resident of Clark County, the State of Nevada and because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the County of Clark, State of Nevada as it conducts business there. Venue is also proper because, the conduct giving rise to this action occurred in Nevada. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Further, the Defendants have a registered agent of service in Nevada and is listed with the Nevada Secretary of State as a foreign limited liability company doing business in Nevada.

         Introduction

         4. The United States Congress has found the banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”), to insure fair and accurate reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. The FCRA also imposes duties on the sources that provide credit information to credit reporting agencies, called “furnishers.”

         5. The FCRA protects consumers through a tightly wound set of procedural protections from the material risk of harms that otherwise flow from inaccurate reporting. Thus, through the FCRA, Congress struck a balance between the credit industry's desire to base credit decisions on accurate information, and consumers' substantive right to protection from damage to reputation, shame, mortification, and the emotional distress that naturally follows from inaccurate reporting of a consumer's fidelity to his or her financial obligations.

         6. DANIEL C. WOLFORD (“Plaintiff”), by Plaintiff's attorneys, brings this action to challenge the actions of EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC (“Equifax”), TRANS UNION, LLC (“TransUnion”), EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Experian”) (or jointly as “CRA Defendants”), and DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC fka GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) with regard to erroneously reporting incomplete and inaccurate credit information.

         7. Defendants failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's credit report disputes, damaging Plaintiff's creditworthiness and “failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates” as statutorily mandated pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).

         8. Further, Defendants named herein also failed to comply with their duties under 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1), which requires that credit reporting agencies “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information.”

         Parties

         9. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the County of Clark, State of Nevada. In addition, Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).

         10. Upon information and belief, Defendant DITECH FINANCIAL LLC (“Ditech”) is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principle place of business in Florida, and at all times relevant conducted business in Nevada.

         11. Defendant Equifax regularly assembles and/or evaluates consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and uses interstate commerce to prepare and/or furnish the reports. Equifax is a “consumer reporting agency” (or “CRA”) as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), doing business with its principal place of business in Georgia.

         12. Defendant Experian regularly assembles and/or evaluates consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and uses interstate commerce to prepare and/or furnish the reports. Experian is a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), doing business in Nevada, with a principal place of business in Ohio.

         13. Defendant TransUnion regularly assembles and/or evaluates consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and uses interstate commerce to prepare and/or furnish the reports. TransUnion is a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), doing business in Nevada.

         14. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendants' name in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers of Defendants' named.

         General Allegations

         15. On or about July 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1301 et seq. Plaintiff's case was assigned Case Number 11-22171-mkn (the “Chapter 13” or “Bankruptcy”).

         16. At the time the Bankruptcy was filed, the Plaintiff owned real property located at 572 Broomspun Street, Henderson, Nevada 89015 (the “Property”).

         17. The Property was subject to a first mortgage deed of trust which was being serviced by BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, INC. (“BAC”), but on information and belief, the mortgage service rights with an account number ending 2671, transferred to Ditech, on or about December 1, 2011 (“Ditech Account”).

         18. On February 29, 2012, the Court entered an order confirming Chapter 13 Plan No. 3 which directed the Plaintiff to maintain all timely post-petition mortgage payments to BAC (the “Confirmation Order”).

         19. A confirmed plan constitutes a new contract between the debtor and creditors and a creditor's rights are defined by the confirmed plan. Consequently, a pre-petition claim provided for in a confirmed plan is no longer a pre-petition claim. The claim is a right to payment arising from the confirmed plan. Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (In re Padilla), 379 B.R. 643, 649, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2655, *1 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2007).

         20. Plaintiff made all payments required under the Confirmation Order, which included all payments due under the Ditech Account.

         21. On or about July 28, 2016, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed a Notice of Final Cure Payment (“NFC”) finding that the amount required to cure any pre-bankruptcy default to Ditech was paid in full; and also finding that the Plaintiff was current on all monthly payments which became due to Ditech after filing the Bankruptcy through the date of the NFC (the “NFC Findings”).

         22. Ditech filed a Response to the NFC Findings (“NFC Response”) on August 11, 2016 agreeing with Chapter 13 Trustee's NFC Findings and deeming that all payments due after the Chapter 13 filing were timely paid.

         23. To date, Ditech has not moved to set-aside the Chapter 13 Trustee's NFC findings and the NFC Findings remain binding.

         24. Then, after dutifully completing all payments required to all creditors under the Confirmation Order (including BAC and then Ditech), the Bankruptcy Court entered an order discharging the Plaintiff on October 7, 2016 (the “Discharge”).

         25. As evidenced by 1) the Confirmation Order, 2) Discharge and 3) lack of any bankruptcy court orders indicating the contrary during the pendency of the Plaintiff's Chapter 13 filing, the Plaintiff made timely payments to each and every creditor after filing Chapter 13 as required by law to present.

         26. To the extent that the Plaintiff's creditors (in particular Ditech) chose to furnish data to a CRA consistent with the terms of the Confirmation Order, such data should have been included in the Plaintiff's “consumer file”.

         27. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681g(a)(1), “[e]very consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer…[a]ll information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, ” subject to the Plaintiff providing “proper identification” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681h(a)(1).

         28. “The term ‘file', when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.” 15 U.S.C. §1681a(g).

         29. In the current matter, the Defendant CRAs failed to comply with their statutory obligation to provide the Plaintiff all information in the Plaintiff's consumer file thereby violating the above defined statutory obligations.

         30. Additionally, Defendants' conduct described herein also failed to comply with the Consumer Data Industry Association (“CDIA”)'s Metro 2 reporting standards (“Metro 2”), which provides guidance for credit reporting and FCRA compliance.

         31. The CDIA publishes the Metro 2 reporting standards to assist furnishers and CRAs (like the Defendants) with their compliance requirements under the FCRA.

         32. Courts rely on such guidance to determine furnisher liability. See e.g. In re Helmes, 336 B.R. 105, 107 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2005).

         33. On information and belief, Defendants herein adopted the Metro 2 reporting standards and at all times relevant implemented the Metro 2 format as an integral aspect of its respective duties under the FCRA to have in place adequate and reasonable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.