SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Transcription

1 SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP Babak Semnar (SBN 0) bob@semnarlawfirm.com Jared M. Hartman (SBN 0) jared@jmhattorney.com 00 S. Melrose Dr., Suite 0 Vista, CA 01 Telephone: (1) -1; Fax: () 1-0 Nasir Khan (SBN 1) THE KHAN LAW FIRM, INC. 0 Technology Drive, Suite 0 Murrieta, CA. Telephone ( 0-; Fax (1) - Attorneys for Plaintiff, ALEX VILLAGRA ALEX VILLAGRA, an individual, vs. Plaintiff, SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1-; Defendant. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 1. CALIFORNIA CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT,. CALIFORNIA ROSENTHAL ACT TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THE HONORABLE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: Plaintiff, ALEX VILLAGRA, an individual, by and through his attorneys of record, hereby complains and alleges as follows. INTRODUCTION 1. ALEX VILLAGRA, ( Plaintiff ), by and through his attorneys, brings this Complaint to challenge the actions of Defendant NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. ( Defendant NAVIENT ) for unfairly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff and for reporting inaccurate 1

2 information on Plaintiff s credit report to the credit reporting agencies, which has caused Plaintiff damages. Defendant has contacted Plaintiff multiple times since December of 01 in an attempt to collect upon a student loan debt for which Plaintiff does not owe, and Defendant has falsely claimed that Plaintiff has signed as the co-signer, and has also reported upon Plaintiff s consumer credit reports the inaccurate information that he owes the student loan and is in default therefore. However, Plaintiff is the victim of identity theft and he never signed the application as the co-signer and has never once had any relationship or interaction with the borrower of the student loan.. This action arises out of Defendant s violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Cal. Civ. Code ) ( California CCRAA ); and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code 1-1.) ( RFDCPA ).. In Calif. Civil Code 1.1(a)-(b), the California Legislature issued the following findings and purpose in creating the RFDCPA: (a)(1) The banking and credit system and grantors of credit to consumers are dependent upon the collection of just and owing debts. Unfair or deceptive collection practices undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking and credit system and sound extensions of credit to consumers. () There is need to ensure that debt collectors and debtors exercise their responsibilities to another with fairness and honesty and due regard for the rights of the other. (b) It is the purpose of this title to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts of practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring such debts, as specified in this title.. In California Civil Code 1.1(a)-(g), the California Legislature made the following findings and purpose in creating the California CCRAA: (a) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, and general reputation of consumers.

3 (b) Consumer credit reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. (c) There is a need to insure that consumer credit reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy. (d) It is the purpose of this title to require that consumer credit reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, hiring of a dwelling unit, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this title. (e) The Legislature hereby intends to regulate consumer credit reporting agencies pursuant to this title in a manner which will best protect the interests of the people of the State of California. (f) The extension of credit is a privilege and not a right. Nothing in this title shall preclude a creditor from denying credit to any applicant providing such denial is based on factors not inconsistent with present law. (g) Any clauses in contracts which prohibit any action required by this title are not in the public interest and shall be considered unenforceable. This shall not invalidate the other terms of such a contract. JURISDICTION & VENUE. This action arises out of Defendant s violations of the State of California CCRAA, which has created a private right of action enforceable by state courts in Calif. Civ. Code 1.1, and the State of California RFDCPA, which has created a private right of action enforceable by state courts in Calif. Civ. Code Because Defendant regularly conducts business within the State of California, personal jurisdiction is established.. Because all tortious conduct occurred while Plaintiff resided in the County of Riverside, City of Murrieta, and witnesses are present within the County of Riverside, venue properly lies in this court. PARTIES & DEFINITIONS

4 Plaintiff is a natural person whose permanent residence is in the City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, State of California.. Defendant regularly does business in the County of San Diego, State of California and maintains an agent for service of process at GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 10N, SACRAMENTO CA.. Plaintiff is a natural person, and is therefore a consumer as that term is defined by Calif. Civ. Code 1.(b) of the California CCRAA.. The causes of action herein partially pertain to Plaintiff s consumer credit reports, as that term is defined by Calif. Civ. Code 1.(c) of the California CCRAA, in that inaccurate misrepresentations of Plaintiff s creditworthiness, credit standing, and credit capacity were made via written, oral, or other communication of information by a consumer credit reporting agency, which is used or is expected to be used, or collected in whole or in part, for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing Plaintiff s eligibility for, among other things, credit to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and employment purposes. 1. Defendant is a partnership, corporation, association, or other entity, and is therefore a person as that term is defined by Calif. Civ. Code 1.(j) of the California CCRAA. 1. Plaintiff is a natural person, and is therefore a person as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1.(g) of the Rosenthal Act. 1. Plaintiff, as a natural person, is an alleged debtor as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1.(h) of the Rosenthal Act, because Defendant has contacted Plaintiff multiple times since December of 01 in an attempt to collect upon a student loan debt for which Plaintiff does not owe, and Defendant has falsely claimed that Plaintiff has signed as the co-signer, and has also reported upon Plaintiff s consumer credit reports the inaccurate information that he owes the student loan and is in default therefore. As such, Plaintiff is an aggrieved party of such false information and

5 misrepresentations conveyed by Defendant. 1. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the debt that Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes is a consumer credit transaction, as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1.(e) of the Rosenthal Act, because the alleged debt is a student loan that the borrower presumably obtained for educational purposes. 1. Because Plaintiff, a natural person, is alleged to be obligated to pay money to Defendant for a line of personal credit, the money allegedly owed was therefore both a consumer debt as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1.(f) of the Rosenthal Act and a debt as that term is defined by California Civil Code 1.(d) of the Rosenthal Act. 1. Defendant, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, and on behalf of themselves, engages in the practice of collecting consumer debts, and thereby engages in debt collection as that term is defined by California Civil Code section 1.(b) of the Rosenthal Act. 1. Because Defendant engages in debt collection, Defendant is therefore a debt collector as that term is defined by California Civil Code section 1.(c) of the Rosenthal Act. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. In December of 01, Plaintiff began receiving phone calls and letters from Defendant NAVIENT claiming that he owed them $0. as the monthly amount due on a student loan for which Defendant claims Plaintiff co-signed. 0. Some of the letters received by Plaintiff from Defendant in March and April of 01 claim that Plaintiff is at least two months past due on the student loan account that Defendant claims Plaintiff co-signed for. 1. Plaintiff has spoken to Defendant multiple times via telephone to inform Defendant that he never co-signed on any student loans for anyone.. Defendant s agents have on multiple occasions refused to accept Plaintiff s

6 representations, and have even claimed to Plaintiff that if he does not pay upon the loan then they will pursue legal action against him in an effort to obtain a judgment and thereafter attach a judgment lien to his home and financial accounts.. Finally, in March of 01, one of Defendant s agents complied with Plaintiff s request to deliver to Plaintiff a copy of the loan agreement.. The loan agreement shows that the loan was provided to someone identified as Silvia Uribe by Defendant s predecessor in interest Sallie Mae.. The loan note shows that Plaintiff s name is listed as the co-signer; however, the loan does not even contain a signature from either Plaintiff or the primary borrower, and the line where a signature is requested contains only typed names.. Plaintiff has absolutely no idea who Silvia Uribe is, and Plaintiff has never once had any business dealings or interactions with either Silvia Uribe, Sallie Mae, or Defendant NAVIENT.. Upon seeing the fact that his name was typed as the co-signer for a loan that he never agreed to co-sign, Plaintiff realized that he has been the victim of identity theft.. Plaintiff lodged a police report with the Murrieta Police Department on April 1, 01.. On or about April 1, 01, Plaintiff applied for and was denied a Home Equity Line of Credit by Bank of America in the amount of $, , and was told that the decision was based strictly upon his consumer credit report showing that his debts are too high relative to his income. 0. This prompted Plaintiff to review his consumer credit report and discovered that Defendant has been reporting upon his consumer credit reports every month since May of 01 through and including the present time the false information that he is obligated for the student loan, and has reported that the amount owed is in excess of $1, and has increased every month since. 1. Plaintiff is suffering from Type Diabetes, Neuropathic Amyotrophy, and Stage cancer, and as such cannot suffer any emotional trauma since stress and emotional trauma may worsen

7 or accelerate his condition.. Moreover, Plaintiff s only source of income is Social Security Insurance and Disability, and occasionally collecting cans and bottles for recycling. As such, Plaintiff needed the Bank of America Home Equity Line of Credit in order to have funds to pay all existing debts, and provide for his and his children s well being.. Had Defendant not reported upon Plaintiff s consume credit report the false information that he is obligated for the student loan with Defendant, then Plaintiff would not have had such a large debt to income disparity and would have received the Home Equity Line of Credit with Bank of America.. Defendant s response to Plaintiff s protestations that the debt is not his by threating legal action and obtaining a judgment lien upon the home have caused Plaintiff to lose sleep and also feelings of anxiety, worry, depression, and feelings of hopelessness over the realistic possibility that he may perish in the near future and that Defendant could pursue a forced lien sale upon the home and thereby deprive his children from having a home in his absence. stated herein. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a). Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other paragraphs as if fully. As the furnisher of information to credit reporting agencies, Defendant is and always was obligated to not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if they knew or should have known the information was incomplete or inaccurate, as required by Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a) of the California CCRA.. Because Defendant reported to the consumer credit reporting agencies since May 01 through and including the present time the false information that Plaintiff is obligated for the default,

8 despite the fact that Plaintiff has specifically told Defendant that he has been the victim of identity theft and he did not enter into any transaction to be the co-signer for this loan and he has not idea who Silvia Uribe is, Defendant has thereby repeatedly violated its obligations under Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a).. Even if Defendant s derogatory reporting is technically accurate, it is still a violation of this law if the derogatory reporting is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions. Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (1) Cal. App. th.. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant s violations as described above were knowing and willful because Plaintiff has informed Defendant that he has been the victim of identity theft yet Defendant has persisted in continuing to report the default upon Plaintiff s consumer credit reports. 0. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages by way of credit denial, loss of credit opportunity, and emotional distress as described in the factual allegations above. stated herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION CALIFORNIA ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT Calif. Civ. Code Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other paragraphs as if fully. By reporting upon Plaintiff s consumer credit reports the false information that Plaintiff is in default upon the loan for which he never entered into any transaction to be obligated upon, Defendant has committed the following violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, which have been incorporated into the RFDCPA via Calif. Civ. Code 1.1: a. Uttered false, deceptive, and misleading representations in connection with its attempt to collect a debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e of the Federal FDCPA; b. Falsely represented the character and legal status of any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C.

9 e() of the Federal FDCPA; c. Communicated credit information that is known or should be known to be false in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e() of the Federal FDCPA; d. Used false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e() of the Federal FDCPA; and e. Engaged in unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1f of the Federal FDCPA.. By asserting to Plaintiff that he is liable for the loan as the co-signer and failing to acknowledge Plaintiff s protestations that he has been the victim of identity theft, and in response threatening to pursue legal action and obtain a judgment lien upon his home, all over a loan note that does not even contain a signature, Defendant has committed the following violations of the Federal FDCPA, which have been incorporated into the RFDCPA via Calif. Civ. Code 1.1: a. Uttered false, deceptive, and misleading representations in connection with its attempt to collect a debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e of the Federal FDCPA; b. Falsely represented the character and legal status of any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e() of the Federal FDCPA; c. Threatened an action that cannot be legally taken in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e() of the Federal FDCPA; d. Used false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1e() of the Federal FDCPA; and e. Engaged in unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt in violation of 1 U.S.C. 1f of the Federal FDCPA. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant, and Plaintiff be

10 awarded damages as follows: As to the First Cause of Action: 1. Actual damages for suffering a point drop in Plaintiff s credit score, as will be proven at trial, for Defendant s negligent violations of Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a), pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code 1.1(a)(1);. Actual damages for mental anguish, stress, frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation, as will be proven at trial, for Defendant s negligent violations of Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a), pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code 1.1(a)(1);. Actual damages, as specified above and as will be proven at trial, plus punitive damages of $0.00-$, for every willful violation of Calif. Civ. Code 1.(a) by Defendant, pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code 1.1(a)()(A)-(C);. Injunctive relief to order Defendant to remove the report from Plaintiff s consumer credit reports, pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code 1.1(b);. Any reasonable attorney s fees and costs to maintain the instant action, pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code 1.1(d). As to the Second Cause of Action (Calif. RFDCPA): 1. An award of actual damages for suffering a point drop in Plaintiff s credit score and for mental anguish, stress, frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation, as will be proven at trial, pursuant to California Civil Code section 1.0(a), as will be proven at trial; plus. An award of statutory damages of $1, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1.0(b) for willful and knowing violations, which is cumulative and in addition to all other remedies pursuant to California Civil Code 1.; plus. An additional award of statutory damages of $1, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 1k(a)()(A), as incorporated into the Rosenthal Act via Calif. Civ. Code 1.1, which is

11 cumulative and in addition to all other remedies pursuant to California Civil Code 1.; plus. An award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney s fees, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code section 1.0(c). SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP DATED: //01 TRIAL BY JURY JARED M. HARTMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury. SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP DATED: //01 JARED M. HARTMAN, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff,