Complaint

Summary

A complaint in John Gentile v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW, Document 1, filed January 18, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, with a jury trial demanded. The plaintiff alleges that LexisNexis reported to potential creditors and insurers that he is deceased, and brings claims for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The complaint describes LexisNexis' alleged practices on deceased notations, including that it does not cross-reference such information with the Limited Access Death Master File it subscribes to. It seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The 18-page filing is signed by McKenzie Czabaj of Consumer Attorneys PLC and ends with a certificate of service.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

          Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 1 of 18



1    MCKENZIE CZABAJ, AZ # 036711
     DAVID A. CHAMI, AZ # 027585
2    DANIEL COHEN, # 032552
     CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
3    8245 N. 85th Way
     Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
4    T: (480) 626-2376
5    E: mczabaj@consumerattorneys.com

6    Attorneys for Plaintiff
     John Gentile
7
                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9                                   PHOENIX DIVISION
10
11   John Gentile,                                      Case No.:

12                             Plaintiff,
     v.                                              JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
13
14   LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.,
15                             Defendant.
16
17
                                             COMPLAINT
18
             John Gentile (“Plaintiff”) a living, breathing 59-year-old consumer, brings this
19
     action on an individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and
20
     states as follows:
21
                                            INTRODUCTION
22
             1.      The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary increase in
23
     the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual American consumers. Data
24
     technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks, the Internal Revenue Service or other
25
     institutions, allows information concerning individual consumers to flow instantaneously
26
     to requesting parties. Such timely information is intended to lead to faster and better
27
28

                                                    1
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 2 of 18



1    decision-making by its recipients and, in theory, all of society should ultimately benefit
2    from the resulting convenience and efficiency.
3           2.     However, unfortunately this information has also become readily available
4    for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and do sustain
5    substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever inaccurate or fraudulent
6    information is disseminated and/or obtained about them. In fact, LexisNexis acknowledges
7    this potential for misuse and resulting damage every time it sells its respective services to a
8    consumer.
9           3.     The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have
10   resulted in a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning individuals’
11   credit histories and other personal information. Such companies are commonly known as
12   consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”).
13          4.     These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e., retailers,
14   landlords, lenders, insurance companies, potential employers, and other similar interested
15   parties), commonly called “consumer reports,” concerning individuals who may be
16   applying for retail credit, housing, insurance, employment, or a car or mortgage loan.
17          5.     Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
18   § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), federal law has required CRAs to implement and utilize
19   reasonable procedures “to assure maximum possible accuracy” of the personal, private, and
20   financial information that they compile and sell about individual consumers.
21          6.     One of the primary purposes in requiring CRAs to assure “maximum possible
22   accuracy” of consumer information is to ensure the stability of our banking system:
23
            The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting.
24          Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system,
            and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which
25          is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.
26
27   See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).
28
                                                   -2-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 3 of 18



1           7.     The preservation of one’s good name and reputation is also at the heart of the
2    FCRA’s purposes:
          [W]ith the trend toward computerization of billings and the establishment of
3
          all sorts of computerized data banks, the individual is in great danger of
4         having his life and character reduced to impersonal “blips” and key-punch
          holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which can literally ruin his
5         reputation without cause, and make him unemployable or uninsurable, as well
6         as deny him the opportunity to obtain a mortgage or buy a home. We are not
          nearly as much concerned over the possible mistaken turn-down of a
7         consumer for a luxury item as we are over the possible destruction of his good
          name without his knowledge and without reason. Shakespeare said, the loss
8
          of one’s good name is beyond price and makes one poor indeed.
9
     Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 cong. Rec. 36570 (1970)]
10
     (emphasis added).
11
            8.     The FCRA also requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to
12
     determine whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record the current
13
     status of the disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before the end of the
14
     30-day period beginning on the date on which the CRA receives the notice of dispute from
15
     the consumer. This mandate exists to ensure that consumer disputes are handled in a timely
16
     manner and that inaccurate information contained within a consumer’s credit report is
17
     corrected and/or deleted so as to not prevent said consumer from benefiting from his or her
18
     credit and obtaining new credit.
19
            9.     In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically noted
20
     “a need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness,
21
     impartiality, and respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” See 15 U. S.C. § 1681(a)(4).
22
            10.    The FCRA also requires furnishers of information, a creditor or other third
23
     party that provides information about consumer to a CRA, upon notice, to conduct a
24
     reasonable reinvestigation of all disputes with regard to the completeness or accuracy of
25
     any information it provides to the CRAs regarding a consumer and modify, delete, or
26
     permanently block any items of information found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or
27
     unverifiable after said reinvestigation is completed.
28
                                                  -3-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 4 of 18



1           11.    Plaintiff’s claims arise out of LexisNexis’ blatantly inaccurate reporting,
2    wherein LexisNexis reported to Plaintiff’s potential creditors/insurers that he is “deceased.”
3           12.    Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against LexisNexis for failing to follow
4    reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s consumer
5    reports, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
6           13.    As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages,
7    costs and attorneys’ fees from LexisNexis for its willful and/or negligent violations of the
8    Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described herein.
9                                             PARTIES
10          14.    Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Scottsdale, Arizona, and is a
11   “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
12          15.    LexisNexis is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout the United
13   States, including the State of Arizona and in this District, and has a principal place of
14   business located at 1000 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. LexisNexis can be
15   served at its registered agent, The Corporation Company, located at 40600 Ann Arbor Rd
16   E, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan 48170.
17          16.    LexisNexis is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
18   1681a(f). LexisNexis is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and
19   disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer
20   reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties.
21                                JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22          17.    This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23   1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought in any
24   appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.
25          18.    Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
26   substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
27   District.
28
                                                    -4-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 5 of 18



1                                              FACTS
2                           Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
3           19.    The FCRA governs the conduct of consumer reporting agencies in an effort
4    to preserve the integrity of the consumer banking system and to protect the rights of
5    consumers to fairness and accuracy in the reporting of their credit information.
6           20.    The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from the harmful effects of
7    inaccurate information reported in consumer reports (commonly referred to as “credit
8    reports”). Thus, Congress enshrined the principles of “fair and accurate credit reporting”
9    and the “need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave
10   responsibilities with fairness” in the very first provision of the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. §
11   1681(a).
12          21.    Specifically, the statute was intended to ensure that “consumer reporting
13   agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer
14   credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable
15   to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper
16   utilization of such information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
17          22.    To that end, the FCRA imposes the following twin duties on consumer
18   reporting agencies: (i) consumer reporting agencies must devise and implement reasonable
19   procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of information contained in
20   consumer reports (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)); and (ii) consumer reporting agencies must
21   reinvestigate the facts and circumstances surrounding a consumer’s dispute and timely
22   correct any inaccuracies (15 U.S.C. § 1681i).
23          23.    The FCRA provides consumers with a private right of action against
24   consumer reporting agencies that willfully or negligently fail to comply with their statutory
25   obligations under the FCRA.
26          LexisNexis’ Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”
27          24.    LexisNexis sells millions of consumer reports per day.
28
                                                  -5-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 6 of 18



1           25.     Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like
2    LexisNexis, are required “to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
3    accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”
4           26.     Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting agencies,
5    like LexisNexis, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that consumer reports are
6    sold only for legitimate “permissible purposes.”
7           27.     LexisNexis routinely places a “deceased” notation or marking on reports
8    when it is advised by any of its many data sources that a given consumer is deceased.
9           28.      LexisNexis does not request or require a death certificate from any of its data
10   sources which advise that a consumer is “deceased” before placing a “deceased” mark in
11   that consumer’s credit file.
12          29.     LexisNexis does not request or require any proof from any data source which
13   advises that a consumer is “deceased,” showing that the consumer is in fact deceased before
14   placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
15          30.     LexisNexis does not independently verify with any source that a consumer is
16   in fact deceased before placing a “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report.
17          31.     In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, LexisNexis may send letters and/or
18   other communications to consumers when certain information that may be considered
19   suspicious or unreliable is furnished about said consumers to be placed in their credit files,
20   such as in cases where consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on their credit report, or in
21   accordance with certain state laws, such as the consumer laws of Colorado. LexisNexis does
22   not have any procedure to notify consumers (such as a next of kin or executor or
23   administrator of the consumer’s estate) when LexisNexis has received information
24   suggesting the consumer is deceased before adding that information to the consumer’s
25   credit file or report.
26          32.     The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains the Death Master File
27   (“DMF”). The DMF is also known commercially as the Social Security Death Index
28
                                                   -6-
         Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 7 of 18



1    (SSDI). The SSA’s DMF as of 2018 contained information on 111 million deaths that have
2    been reported to the SSA. The DMF is created from internal SSA records of deceased
3    persons possessing social security numbers and whose deaths were reported to the SSA.
4    The DMF includes the following information on each decedent, if the data are available to
5    the SSA: Social Security Number, name, date of birth, and date of death.
6            33.      Legislation (i.e., the Social Security Act) precludes the sharing of the full
7    DMF with non-benefits paying agencies.
8            34.      Because of the wide use and demand for death records for a variety of
9    industries, SSA has partnered with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Technical
10   Information Service (NTIS) to release the Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF)
11   electronically on a weekly and monthly basis.
12           35.      The SSA receives death reports from many sources, including family
13   members, funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, state information, and
14   other federal agencies. The SSA does not have a death record for all persons; therefore, the
15   SSA does not guarantee the veracity of the DMF.
16           36.      The SSA estimates that roughly 12,000 living people are added to the DMF
17   annually, potentially due to clerical error. An erroneous listing can lead to not only a
18   cessation of government benefits, but also the freezing of bank accounts, the inability to
19   buy or rent property, and mistaken accusations of identity theft.1
20           37.      The Office of the Inspector General called the error rate “very low,” but noted
21   that “SSA’s erroneous death entries can lead to mistaken benefit terminations and cause
22   severe financial hardship and distress to affected people…when errors like this occur, it can
23   be a long and difficult process to resurrect your financial health.2
24
25
     1
26     Aviva Dekornfeld (2018-06-20). "The Plight of the Living Dead". The Indicator from Planet Money (Podcast).
     Bichell, Rae Ellen (2016-08-10). "Social Security Data Errors Can Turn People into the Living Dead". National Public
     Radio.
27   2
       "Cases of Mistaken Death Reports Low but Costly | Office of the Inspector General, SSA". oig.ssa.gov. 2016-03-24.
     Archived from the original on 2020-07-16.
28
                                                             -7-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 8 of 18



1           38.     LexisNexis does not have access to the full DMF from the SSA, but rather is
2    a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF.
3           39.     Despite being a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF, LexisNexis does not cross-
4    reference the information it has received suggesting a consumer is deceased with the
5    LADMF in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as deceased via its
6    source is also on the LADMF before selling a consumer report about said consumer, or at
7    any time.
8           40.     LexisNexis fails to employ reasonable procedures that assure that a consumer
9    is actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that consumer’s report and
10   selling that report for profit.
11          41.     Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer’s report
12   indicates that he/she is not deceased, LexisNexis does not employ any procedures to assure
13   that a consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark in that
14   consumer’s file.
15          42.     Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer communicates
16   directly with the LexisNexis, LexisNexis does not employ any procedures to assure that a
17   consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the “deceased” mark on that
18   consumer’s report.
19          43.     LexisNexis knows that living consumers are routinely turned down for credit,
20   insurance, employment, and/or housing specifically because LexisNexis has reported the
21   consumer as “deceased.”
22          44.     LexisNexis has been put on notice for years through consumer disputes and
23   lawsuits that living, breathing consumers are turned down for credit and other opportunities
24   specifically because LexisNexis is inaccurately reporting them as “deceased.”
25          45.     LexisNexis has received and documented many disputes from consumers
26   complaining that LexisNexis had erroneously marked them as “deceased” on their
27   consumer reports.
28
                                                  -8-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 9 of 18



1           46.    LexisNexis knows that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked as
2    “deceased” on their consumer reports.
3           47.    Nevertheless, LexisNexis does not employ any procedures to assure that a
4    consumer is actually deceased before adding a “deceased” notation to that consumer’s
5    consumer reports.
6           48.    LexisNexis does not employ any procedures to limit or stop the furnishing of
7    reports to third parties for consumers that they have marked as “deceased” under any
8    circumstances.
9           49.    For years after a consumer’s actual death, LexisNexis will continue to sell
10   consumer reports about that consumer.
11          50.    LexisNexis will only remove a deceased consumer’s file from its respective
12   consumer reporting databases when it is no longer valuable to them—meaning that no one
13   is continuing to purchase reports about that consumer.
14          51.    LexisNexis charges third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a consumer
15   is deceased as they would for any other report.
16          52.    LexisNexis profits from the sale of reports on deceased consumers.
17          53.    LexisNexis knows that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
18          54.    LexisNexis knows that the credit information and reports of truly deceased
19   persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud. Indeed, identity theft
20   using the personal identifying information of deceased consumers is known to LexisNexis
21   to be a common and major source of identity theft.
22          55.    LexisNexis knows that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and
23   widespread problems in our society.
24          56.    LexisNexis sells reports on supposedly deceased consumers to third parties in
25   an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification that could reasonably
26   explain a “permissible purpose” for purchasing or using a (supposedly) deceased
27   consumer’s credit history and/or report.
28
                                                   -9-
       Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 10 of 18



1             57.   For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a permissible
2    purpose under the FCRA for the LexisNexis to sell their consumer reports, absent a court
3    order.
4             58.   LexisNexis knows that such reports contain a vast amount of personal
5    identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer,
6    information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent purposes.
7                        Plaintiff Loses Access to the ApplePay Platform
8             59.   Plaintiff owned and operated a food truck, which was Plaintiff’s primary
9    source of income at the time.
10            60.   In or around June 2023, Plaintiff encountered a serious problem when
11   attempting to process a customer’s payment through ApplePay.
12            61.   Specifically, Plaintiff received an error message indicating that Plaintiff
13   needed to verify his identity in order to continue using ApplePay’s services.
14            62.   Accordingly, Plaintiff began the verification process, during which, an
15   ApplePay representative informed Plaintiff that he was being reported as deceased.
16            63.   The ApplePay representative informed Plaintiff that there was nothing it
17   could do; he would need to resolve the deceased reporting with LexisNexis.
18            64.   Upon information and belief, LexisNexis was the source of the “deceased”
19   notation that was published to ApplePay.
20            65.   Upon information and belief, LexisNexis published a consumer report to
21   ApplePay wherein it reported that Plaintiff was deceased.
22            66.   Upon information and belief, ApplePay terminated Plaintiff’s access to
23   ApplePay’s services based upon the contents of a consumer report LexisNexis sold about
24   Plaintiff.
25            67.   Plaintiff was confused, distressed, and shocked by the reporting that he was
26   “deceased.” Certainly, Plaintiff was not deceased.
27
28
                                                 - 10 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 11 of 18



1           68.      Plaintiff was particularly frustrated that he lost access to ApplePay because
2    of the convenience that ApplePay provides to small business owners like Plaintiff.
3           69.      And further, since Plaintiff was unable to re-gain access to ApplePay, there
4    were multiple payments from customers that did not process. Plaintiff was then forced to
5    call the customers and ask them to remit payment again. Many of Plaintiff’s customers
6    refused as on their end, payment appeared to have been sent, and others never returned
7    Plaintiff’s calls, causing him to lose out on the earnings from those sales.
8           70.      However, Plaintiff assumed the deceased reporting to be a fluke because he
9    was clearly alive.
10          71.      Thereafter, attempted to collect payment using other payment methods, but
11   many of his customers could only pay using ApplePay, causing trouble for his business.
12          72.      This was the last straw for Plaintiff. Accordingly, he closed his food truck
13   business.
14                Plaintiff Applies for a Synchrony/Venmo Debit Card August 2023
15
            73.      In or around the beginning of August 2023, Plaintiff decided to apply for a
16
     Venmo card.
17
            74.      Plaintiff desired the Venmo card because it would allow him to use money in
18
     his Venmo account to purchase things online or in-person, as opposed to having to wait for
19
     money to be transferred to a separate bank account.
20
            75.      On or about August 3, 2023, Plaintiff completed and submitted an application
21
     with Venmo/Synchrony for a debit card.
22
            76.      Plaintiff, believing the previous deceased reporting was a fluke, had no reason
23
     to believe he would be denied for the debit card.
24
           Venmo/Synchrony Denies Plaintiff’s Debit Card Application August 2023
25
26          77.      Upon information and belief, Venmo/Synchrony ordered a consumer report
27   about Plaintiff from Defendant on or about August 3, 2023.
28
                                                   - 11 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 12 of 18



1              78.   Upon information and belief, Defendant published information about Plaintiff
2    to Synchrony/Capital One in response to that credit application on or about August 3, 2023.
3              79.   Upon information and belief, after reviewing Defendant’s report about
4    Plaintiff, Venmo/Synchrony denied Plaintiff’s credit application.
5              80.   Specifically, Venmo/Synchrony denied Plaintiff’s credit application because
6    Plaintiff was being reported as deceased.
7              81.   Upon information and belief, Venmo/Synchrony denied Plaintiff’s credit
8    application based upon the contents of a consumer report Defendant sold about Plaintiff.
9              82.   Plaintiff was disappointed that he was once again having issues due to
10   inaccurate deceased reporting. Clearly, Plaintiff was alive. Plaintiff found that information
11   to be very distressing and confusing.
12
      Plaintiff’s Dispute to Defendant Regarding the Inaccurate Consumer Reporting in
13
                                              August 2023
14
               83.   After the Venmo denial, Plaintiff no longer believed the deceased reporting
15
     was a fluke.
16
               84.   In or around August 2023, Plaintiff called Defendant in an attempt to dispute.
17
     However, no matter how many times he called, Plaintiff could not get through to anyone;
18
     he wasted hours on hold.
19
               85.   After doing some research, Plaintiff discovered that he could dispute by mail.
20
               86.   Plaintiff located a dispute form online, printed it out, and completed the form.
21
     As a part of the form, Plaintiff provided his Social Security number and indicated that he
22
     was disputing Defendant’s inaccurate reporting of him as deceased.
23
               87.   Plaintiff requested that Defendant send him a corrected copy of his consumer
24
     report.
25
               88.   On or about August 19, 2023, Plaintiff received a response to his dispute.
26
27
28
                                                    - 12 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 13 of 18



1           89.    However, Plaintiff was quite unsure what the twenty-two pages of results was
2    informing him.
3    Plaintiff Obtains His Consumer Report and Confirms that Defendant was Reporting
4                                         Him as Deceased
5           90.    After reviewing the dispute response from LexisNexis, it was unclear to
6    Plaintiff whether he was still being reported as deceased. Accordingly, Plaintiff decided to
7    review his LexisNexis consumer report again.
8           91.    Plaintiff reviewed his LexisNexis report in or around October 2023.
9           92.    Upon review, Plaintiff discovered that LexisNexis was no longer actively
10   reporting that he was deceased.
11          93.    Upon information and belief, Defendant removed the deceased notation after
12   receiving Plaintiff’s dispute in or around August 2023.
13          94.    However, Plaintiff also discovered that LexisNexis had previously published
14   information indicating he was deceased to multiple other entities.
15          95.    Specifically, upon information and belief, LexisNexis reported a “deceased”
16   notation to the following insurance companies on the following dates: Hugo Insurance
17   (April 30, 2023); State Farm Mutual (May 11, 2023); American Family Mutual Insurance
18   (May 19, 2023); Hugo Insurance (May 19, 2023); Progressive POS (May 30, 2023); Allstate
19   ACCNO (June 1, 2023); Allstate Ins Co (June 1, 2023); Allstate ACCNO (June 1, 2023);
20   Progressive Pos (July 24, 2023); State Farm Mutual (July 25, 2023).
21          96.    In or around early 2023, Plaintiff was informed that his insurance rates were
22   going to increase.
23          97.    Plaintiff was shocked and confused as he did not believe there were any
24   circumstances that would justify such an increase; Plaintiff was not involved in any recent
25   accidents and did not receive any tickets.
26          98.    Accordingly, over the next couple of months, Plaintiff attempted to obtain
27   several quotes for other insurance companies.
28
                                                  - 13 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 14 of 18



1           99.     However, Plaintiff was unable to obtain any lower or more reasonable rates.
2           100.    Once again, Plaintiff was confused. He did not understand why the insurance
3    rates were so high.
4           101.    Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s insurance rate increased due to
5    Defendant’s inaccurate reporting of Plaintiff as deceased.
6           102.    Upon information and belief, the insurance quotes Plaintiff received were
7    inexplicably high due to Defendant’s inaccurate reporting of Plaintiff as deceased.
8           103.    Upon information and belief, in response to each of Plaintiff’s insurance
9    applications, LexisNexis sold consumer reports to Plaintiff’s prospective insurance
10   providers which indicated that he was deceased.
11          104.    Plaintiff was deeply upset to learn LexisNexis had repeatedly reported that
12   Plaintiff was deceased to his insurer and prospective insurers.
13          105.    Plaintiff was particularly frustrated because he desired a more affordable
14   insurance plan.
15          106.    Plaintiff was also concerned that his insurer and prospective insurer believed
16   he was engaged in fraudulent behavior.
17
            107.    LexisNexis had every reason to know that Plaintiff was not deceased.
18
     Defendant was receiving updates concerning Plaintiff from its sources and receiving
19
     requests from third parties for copies of his consumer report, evidencing that Plaintiff was
20
     actively applying for credit.
21
            108.    Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow
22
     reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer information
23
     it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
24
            109.    As a result of the deceased notation, Defendant made it practically impossible
25
     for Plaintiff to obtain credit.
26
            110.    As a result of the deceased notation, Plaintiff could not obtain affordable
27
     insurance.
28
                                                  - 14 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 15 of 18



1            111.   At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its agents,
2    servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or
3    employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant herein.
4            112.   At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant, as well as that of its
5    respective agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, grossly
6    negligent and in utter disregard for federal law and the rights of Plaintiff herein.
7            113.   Defendant is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and intentionally
8    chooses not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly, the Defendant’s
9    violations of the FCRA are willful.
10           114.   As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered
11   damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his credit rating;
12   detriment to his credit rating; wasted time; and emotional distress including the mental and
13   emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denials.
14           115.   As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct Plaintiff feared that he was the
15   victim of identity theft; or that his prospective creditors thought he was engaging in
16   fraudulent behavior.
17           116.   The inaccurate deceased reporting also caused financial struggles for Plaintiff
18   as it contributed to him closing his food truck business.
19           117.   Defendant’s conduct also caused stress, anxiety, and frustration.
20           118.   Consequently, Plaintiff suffered from sleepless nights.
21           119.   In addition, Defendant’s conduct caused tension between Plaintiff and his
22   wife.
23           120.   Plaintiff’s time was also wasted by having to make phone calls, sit on hold,
24   mail a dispute form, and review his consumer reports.
25           121.   Plaintiff is also fearful that he will be dealing with the inaccurate deceased
26   report until the day he actually dies.
27
28
                                                   - 15 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 16 of 18



1                                      CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
2                                              COUNT I
3                                        15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
4      Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy
5
6           122.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
7    preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
8           123.   The FCRA imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to devise and
9    implement procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer reports, as
10   follows:
           Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall
11
           follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
12         information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.
13   15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) (emphasis added).

14          124.   On numerous occasions, Defendant prepared patently false consumer reports

15   concerning Plaintiff.

16          125.   Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead, Defendant

17   readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff,

18   and ultimately Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.

19          126.   Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow

20   reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the

21   consumer reports it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

22          127.   As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered

23   damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good credit rating;

24   detriment to his credit rating; wasted time; and emotional distress including the mental and

25   emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denials.

26          128.   Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering it liable for

27   actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the

28
                                                    - 16 -
          Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 17 of 18



1    Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, they were negligent, entitling Plaintiff
2    to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
3                129.   Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant in an
4    amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
5
6                                           PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7                WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
8          i.    Determining that Defendant negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;
9         ii.    Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the FCRA;
10    iii.       Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the FCRA;
11               and,
12    iv.        Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate and just.
13
14                                        DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15               Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
16
17
18              Date: January 18, 2024.
                                                            /s/ McKenzie Czabaj
19
                                                            McKenzie Czabaj, AZ # 036711
20                                                          David A. Chami, AZ # 027585
                                                            Daniel Cohen, AZ #032552
21                                                          Consumer Attorneys PLC
22                                                          8245 N. 85th Way
                                                            Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
23                                                          T: (480) 626-2376
                                                            E: mczabaj@consumerattorneys.com
24
25                                                          Attorneys for Plaintiff John Gentile
26
27   //

28
                                                        - 17 -
      Case 2:24-cv-00131-ESW Document 1 Filed 01/18/24 Page 18 of 18



1                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2           I hereby certify that on January 18, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing
3    document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system. Notice of such filing will be
4    sent to all attorneys of record in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-
5    ECF participants, hard copies of the foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery
6    or by postal mail.
                                                By: /s/ Gracelyn Stewart
7
                                                    Gracelyn Stewart
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                                  - 18 -


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1359702.1.0.pdf

Size

268,947 bytes

SHA-256

15a42d5435f2e2a17f8b3ac2be78260749a49d549b1e042447c6b84076690539

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1359702.1.0.pdf

Original

www.courtlistener.com