Complaint — Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1)

What This Document Is

This is Jhonny Erik Ordonez's federal complaint against LexisNexis Risk Solutions, filed in the Middle District of Florida on August 14, 2024. The complaint alleges that LexisNexis mixed Ordonez's file with insurance information belonging to his twin brother.

Factual Summary

Ordonez alleges that LexisNexis reported insurance policy and claim records that did not belong to him, including information connected to his twin brother. The complaint says Geico did not give him its best quote after receiving a LexisNexis report on or about March 1, 2024 and that LexisNexis initially said it could not process his request for the report because it could not verify his identity. Ordonez also alleges that, while he was financing a home in April 2024, Swyfft and then Universal Property & Casualty declined or affected homeowners insurance based on records obtained from LexisNexis.

The complaint asserts FCRA claims for failure to follow reasonable procedures and furnishing a consumer report without a permissible purpose. It seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and a jury trial.

Key Facts

Ordonez alleges that his July 12, 2024 LexisNexis file contained insurance policy and claim records belonging to his twin brother.
The alleged mixed-file records affected auto insurance quotes and homeowners insurance connected to a home purchase.
The complaint identifies Geico, Swyfft, and Universal Property & Casualty as downstream users of the disputed report data.
The pleading includes claims under 15 U.S.C. sections 1681e(b) and 1681b(a).

Source Caveats

This summary is based on the complaint and attributes contested facts as allegations.

Date: 2024-08-14

Cite this document

“Complaint — Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1).” Original at www.courtlistener.com, dated 2024-08-14. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2024-08-14-jhonny-erik-ordonez-v-lexisnexis-risk-solutions-inc/, SHA-256 dfe8590a6178eb812abc52c9e8953451c615864c2ae5906b3e6528e66dab3adf.

Full text

Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 36 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

JHONNY ERIK ORDONEZ, Case No.: 6:24-cv-01488

Plaintiffs,
v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC.,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Jhonny Erik Ordonez (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Ordonez”) brings this action on an

individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LNRS” or “Defendant”)

for actual, statutory, and punitive damages and costs, and attorney’s fees, for

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et. seq.,

arising out of Defendant’s mixing Plaintiff’s credit file with another consumer.

INTRODUCTION

1. The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary

increase in the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual American

consumers. Data technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks, the Internal

Revenue Service or other institutions, allows information concerning individual

consumers to flow instantaneously to requesting parties. Such timely information is

intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients and, in theory,

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
1/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 36 PageID 2

all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting convenience and

efficiency.

2. However, unfortunately this information has also become readily

available for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and

do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever

inaccurate or fraudulent information is disseminated and/or obtained about them. In

fact, the Defendant acknowledges this potential for misuse and resulting damage

every time it sells its respective credit monitoring services to a consumer.

3. The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have

resulted in a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning

individuals' credit histories and other personal information. Such companies are

commonly known as consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs").

4. These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e.,

retailers, landlords, lenders, insurers, potential employers, and other similar

interested parties), commonly called "consumer reports," concerning individuals

who may be applying for retail credit, insurance, housing, employment, or a car or

mortgage loan.

5. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), federal law has required CRAs to implement and

utilize reasonable procedures "to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
2/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 3 of 36 PageID 3

personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell about

individual consumers.

6. “Credit is the lifeblood of the modern American economy, and for the

American consumer access to credit has become inextricably tied to consumer credit

scores as reported by credit reporting agencies.” Burke v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

2011 WL 1085874, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2011).

7. Congress made the following findings when it enacted the FCRA in

1970:

(a) 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.
(b) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating
and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit
capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.
(c) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in
assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other
information on consumers.
(d) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies
exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality,
and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.
15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1-4).

8. Thus, one of the fundamental purposes of the FCRA is “to require that

consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of

commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a

manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
3/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 4 of 36 PageID 4

confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in

accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).

Accordingly, “[t]he FCRA evinces Congress’ intent that consumer reporting

agencies, having the opportunity to reap profits through the collection and

dissemination of credit information, bear ‘grave responsibilities.’” Cushman v.

Trans Union, 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997).

9. The preservation of one's good name and reputation is also at the heart

of the FCRA's purposes:

[W]ith the trend toward computerization of billings and the
establishment of all sorts of computerized data banks, the individual is
in great danger of having his life and character reduced to impersonal
"blips" and key-punch holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which
can literally ruin his reputation without cause, and make him
unemployable or uninsurable, as well 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 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 of one's good
name is beyond price and makes one poor indeed.
Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 cong. Rec.

36570 (1970)] (emphasis added).

10. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq., (“FCRA”), the federal law has required CRAs

to have in place and to utilize reasonable procedures “to assure the maximum

possible accuracy” of the personal and financial information that they compile and

sell about individual consumers.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
4/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 5 of 36 PageID 5

11. The FCRA also requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation

to determine whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record

the current status of the disputed information, or delete the disputed information,

before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the CRA receives

the notice of dispute from the consumer. This mandate exists to ensure that consumer

disputes are handled in a timely manner and that inaccurate information contained

within a consumer's credit report is corrected and/or deleted so as to not prevent said

consumer from benefiting from his or her credit and obtaining new credit.

12. In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically

noted "a need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with

fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumer's right to privacy." See 15 U. S.C.

§ 1681(a)(4).

13. The FCRA also requires furnishers of information, a creditor or other

third party that provides information about consumer to a CRA, upon notice, to

conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of all disputes with regard to the completeness

or accuracy of any information it provides to the CRAs regarding a consumer and

modify, delete, or permanently block any items of information found to be

inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable after said reinvestigation is completed.

14. A recurring and known issue within the credit reporting industry is the

creation of “mixed files.”

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
5/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 6 of 36 PageID 6

15. A “mixed file” occurs when personal and credit information belonging

to Consumer B appears in one or more of Consumer A’s credit files.

16. “Mixed files” create a false description and representation of a

consumer’s credit history.

17. The Federal Trade Commission defined a mixed credit file as a file that

“refers to a Consumer Report in which some or all of the information pertains to

Persons other than the Person who is subject to that Consumer Report.” F.T.C. v.

TRW, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 361, 362 (N.D. Tex. 1991).

18. Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. Defendant has been on notice

of the existence of mixed files, and the fact that its procedures for creating credit

files, including its matching algorithms, are prone to frequently cause mixed files,

for over thirty (30) years. See Thompson v. San Antonia Retail Merchants Ass’n,

682 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 1982).

19. Notwithstanding Defendant’s notice , mixed files continue to occur

despite consumers’ unique personal identifying information, such as Social Security

numbers, date of birth, and addresses.

20. Another consequence of mixed files is the resulting disclosure of a

consumer’s most personal identifying and financial information absent the

consumer’s knowledge or consent, or both. This occurs when a consumer’s file is

mixed with that of another consumer, and either of those consumers applies for

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
6/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 7 of 36 PageID 7

credit, housing, insurance, or employment, and Defendant sells information

pertaining to one consumer in response to the application of the other.

21. CRAs, including Defendant, have been sued thousands of times

wherein an allegation was made that Defendant violated the FCRA. Moreover,

Defendant is sued, at a minimum, hundreds of times each year wherein an allegation

is made that Defendant mixed a consumer’s credit file with that of another consumer.

22. FCRA lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts for

consumers who fall victim to a mixed credit file.

23. For example, in 2002, the jury in Judy Thomas v. Trans Union LLC,

District of Oregon, Case NO. 00-1150-JE, found Trans Union had willfully violated

the FCRA by mixing Judy Thomas’s personal and credit information with another

consumer’s and failing to unmix them despite Ms. Thomas’ numerous disputes. The

jury awarded Ms. Thomas $300,000.00 in actual damages and $5,000,000.00 in

punitive damages. Despite the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’

credit files with other consumers’ credit files.

24. In 2007, the jury in Angela Williams v. Equifax Information Services,

LLC, Circuit Court for Orange County Florida, Case No. 48-2003-CA-9035-0,

awarded Angela Williams $219,000.00 in actual damages and $2,700,000.00 in

punitive damages for willfully violating the FCRA by mixing Angela Williams with

another consumer and failing to unmix them despite Ms. Williams’ disputes.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
7/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 8 of 36 PageID 8

Despite the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other

consumers’ credit files.

25. In 2013, the jury in Julie Miller v. Equifax Information Services, LLC,

District of Oregon, Case No. 3:11-cv-01231-BR, awarded Julie Miller $180,000.00

in actual damages and more than $18,000,000.00 in punitive damages for willfully

violating the FCRA by mixing Julie Miller with another consumer and failing to

unmix them despite Ms. Miller’ numerous disputes. Despite the verdict, Defendant

continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other consumers’ credit files.

26. More recently, a jury assessed a $60 million dollar verdict against Trans

Union for mixing innocent persons as terrorists and drug dealers by matching

consumers with the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s “terrorist alert” list based on

first and last name alone. See Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-CV-00632-JSC,

2017 WL 5153280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017), aff’d in part, vacated in part,

rev’d in part sub nom. Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 20020).

Despite the verdict, Defendant continues to mix consumers’ credit files with other

consumers’ credit files.

27. “Evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited

conduct while knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant

support for an argument that strong evidence is required to cure the defendant’s

disrespect for the law.” Dalton v. CAI, 257 F.3d 409, 418 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
8/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 9 of 36 PageID 9

that whether “other consumers have lodged complaints similar to Dalton’s against

CAI” is relevant to willfulness under the FCRA). Moreover, repeated

noncompliance with statutory duties can establish that the defendants acted willfully.

See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 53 (2007) (punitive damages can be

awarded based on “reckless disregard for a statutory duty”).

28. No less than three federal Courts of Appeal have held a consumer

reporting agency violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and may be found to have willfully

violated the FCRA when it mixes a consumer’s file with another consumer.

29. Notably, the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned

consumer reporting agencies, including Defendant, to review their procedures when

a mixed file occurs.

30. Despite federal and state law, Congressional mandate, federal and state

enforcement actions, and thousands of consumer lawsuits, mixed credit files remain

a significant problem for innocent consumers, including Plaintiff.

31. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the Defendant’s blatantly inaccurate

credit reporting, wherein Defendant published in a consumer report about Plaintiff

the information of another consumer because Defendant mixed Plaintiff’s credit file

with that of an unrelated consumer.

32. Further, Plaintiff’s claims also arise out of Defendant’s blatantly

inaccurate credit reporting, wherein Defendant permitted the impermissible access

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
9/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 10 of 36 PageID 10

to Plaintiff’s credit file when it published a consumer report about Plaintiff in

response to a credit application submitted by and pertaining to an unrelated

consumer because Defendant mixed Plaintiff’s credit file with that of an unrelated

consumer.

33. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for failing to

follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiffs

credit reports, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); for failing to conduct

a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether information Plaintiff disputed was

inaccurate and in fact, the product of a mixed file, and for failing to delete the

disputed information from Plaintiff’s credit file, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681i; and for selling Plaintiff’s credit report to third parties, whom did not have

a permissible purpose to Plaintiff’s credit report, in relation to the credit application

of an unrelated consumer, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

34. As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive

damages, costs and attorneys' fees from the Defendant for its willful and/or negligent

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described

herein.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
10/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 11 of 36 PageID 11

PARTIES

35. Jhonny Erik Ordonez (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Ordonez”) is a natural person

residing in Oviedo, Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681a(c).

36. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LNRS” or “Defendant”) is

a Delaware corporation doing business throughout the United States, including the

State of Florida and in this District, and has a principal place of business located at

1000 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. LexisNexis can be served at its

registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 1200 South Pine Island Road,

Plantation, FL 33324.

37. LNRS is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(f). LNRS is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and

disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing

consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), to third parties.

38. The information LNRS collects, maintains, and sells includes

confidential details about the income, finances, credit histories, address histories,

application histories, credit review histories, and employment histories of millions

of Americans. LNRS also collects consumers’ personal identifiers, such as Social

Security Numbers (“SSNs”), dates of birth, telephone numbers, and addresses.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
11/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 12 of 36 PageID 12

39. LNRS collects and maintains such information about consumers,

whether consumers like it or not. Consumers do not have a choice as to whether

LNRS collects and maintains information about them. Not only that, but consumers

cannot remove information that LNRS collects and maintains about them from the

LNRS database. Further, LNRS sells that information about consumers for its

unilateral profit, none of which is shared with the Plaintiff, who is the subject of the

very data that LNRS sold.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

40. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought

in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.

41. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims

occurred in this District.

SUMMARY OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
42. The FCRA governs the conduct of consumer reporting agencies in an

effort to preserve the integrity of the consumer banking system and to protect the

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
12/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 13 of 36 PageID 13

rights of consumers to fairness and accuracy in the reporting of their credit

information.

43. The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from the harmful effects

of inaccurate information reported in consumer reports (commonly referred to as

“credit reports”). Thus, Congress enshrined the principles of “fair and accurate credit

reporting” and the “need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their

grave responsibilities with fairness” in the very first provision of the FCRA. See 15

U.S.C. § 1681(a).

44. Specifically, the statute was intended to ensure that “consumer

reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce

for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, 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. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).

45. To that end, the FCRA imposes the following twin duties on consumer

reporting agencies: (i) consumer reporting agencies must devise and implement

reasonable procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of information

contained in consumer reports (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)); and (ii) consumer reporting

agencies must reinvestigate the facts and circumstances surrounding a consumer’s

dispute and timely correct any inaccuracies (15 U.S.C. § 1681i).

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
13/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 14 of 36 PageID 14

46. The FCRA provides consumers with a private right of action against

consumer reporting agencies that willfully or negligently fail to comply with their

statutory obligations under the FCRA.

DEFENDANT’S PROCESSING OF CREDIT INFORMATION
47. Defendant regularly receives information from various sources around

the country including banks, credit unions, automobile dealers, student loan

providers, public information vendors, and others.

48. These sources are known as “furnishers” within the credit reporting

industry and under the FCRA.

49. Defendant collects information from thousands of furnishers.

50. The process by which Defendant receives, sorts, and stores information

is largely electronic.

51. Furnishers report credit information to Defendant through the use of

coded tapes that are transmitted to Defendant on a monthly basis through software

known as Metro 2.

52. Defendant takes credit information reported by furnishers and creates

consumer credit files.

53. Defendant maintains credit files on millions of consumers.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
14/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 15 of 36 PageID 15

54. Credit files are updated electronically by the furnishers to reflect new

information regarding the reported accounts (sometimes referred to within the

industry as “tradelines”).

DEFENDANT’S MIXED FILE PROBLEM
55. Defendant knows that different consumers have similar names.

56. Defendant knows that different consumers can have similar Social

Security numbers.

57. Defendant knows that different consumers with similar names can also

have similar Social Security numbers.

58. Defendant knows that public records often do contain identifying

information such as Social Security numbers or dates of birth.

59. Defendant matches tradelines and public records to a consumer credit

file by comparing the information about the consumer associated with the tradeline

or public record to the information they maintain about the consumer in the

consumer’s credit file or files.

60. Defendant accomplishes this matching of credit information to

consumer credit files through the use of certain matching algorithms or database

rules.

61. From time to time, Defendant’s matching algorithms match

information belonging to one consumer to the credit file of another consumer;

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
15/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 16 of 36 PageID 16

resulting in what’s commonly known as in the credit reporting industry as a mixed

or merged credit file.

62. Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. In fact, as long ago as the early

1990s, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (the government agency charged

with enforcement of the FCRA), entered into individual Consent Decrees with each

of the major CRAs, specifically including Defendant, regarding its significant

failures and deficiencies with respect to mixed files.

63. Despite Defendant's long-standing and specific knowledge of the mixed

file problem, Plaintiff’s credit report was still generated by Defendant containing

information belonging to another consumer.

64. A mixed or merged credit file is the result of Defendant’s inaccurately

mixing personal identifying information and credit information and/or an entire

credit file belonging to one consumer into the credit file of another consumer.

65. There are many different possible causes for the mixing of credit files

but all of them relate in one way or another to the algorithms and/or database rules

used by Defendant to match personal identifying information and credit information,

including public record information, to a particular consumers’ credit file.

66. The success or failure of these algorithms or rules is both a function of

the rules themselves and of the information provided by the furnishers of the

tradeline information to Defendant.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
16/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 17 of 36 PageID 17

67. A mixed consumer report could be caused by an improper algorithm

just as it could be caused by the inaccurate reporting of a consumer’s personal

“indicative” information (e.g., name, Social Security number, address, date of birth,

etc.) by the furnishers to Defendant.

68. Accordingly, the database rules determine which credit files are

selected by the algorithm and merged to create a complete consumer report.

69. Therefore, a mixed consumer report is sometimes the result of the

mixing of two or more consumer credit files belonging to different consumers into

one consumer report.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Attempts to Renew his Insurance with
Progressive at a Discounted Rate

70. On or about November 14, 2023, Plaintiff was interested in renewing

his car insurance with Progressive and applied for a renewal. A Progressive

representative informed Plaintiff that, due to his great driving history, Plaintiff

would qualify for a significant discount to his insurance rate.

71. For Progressive to make a determination on Plaintiff’s application to

renew his car insurance, it would need to obtain copies of his consumer files.

Plaintiff provided Progressive with his personal identification information, and

authorized it to obtain copies of his consumer files.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
17/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 18 of 36 PageID 18

72. On or about November 14, 2023, Defendant sold a consumer report

about Plaintiff to Progressive in response to Plaintiff’s application to renew his car

insurance at the discounted rate.

Progressive Informs Plaintiff that he Does Not Qualify
for the Discounted Rate

73. Shortly after receiving the consumer report concerning Plaintiff from

Defendant, a Progressive representative informed Plaintiff that he would not qualify

for the discount because of an insurance claim incident that happened in New York.

74. Defendant’s reporting was grossly inaccurate because Plaintiff never

owned or lease a car while he lived in New York.

75. Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed at the discounted rate denial

because Plaintiff had been diligently working towards being a responsible driver and

had been very careful to avoid accidents. Plaintiff was even more confused since he

only obtained a car, and therefore car insurance, when he moved to Florida.

76. Accordingly, Plaintiff called Progressive and spoke to another

representative. The representative brought up the New York claim and Plaintiff

explained that this claim did not belong to him. The representative responded that

Plaintiff needed to contact Defendant, the company that provided this information

to them, to correct the matter.

77. Thereafter, in or around the period of late-2023 through the beginning

of 2024, Plaintiff requested his consumer report twice from Defendant. However,

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
18/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 19 of 36 PageID 19

Defendant responded to each of these requests with a letter stating it was unable to

verify Plaintiff’s Identity. Plaintiff also attempted to Defendant on numerous

occasions without any success.

78. It was inaccurate for Defendant to publish information to a third party

indicating that Plaintiff had an insurance claim incident arising out of an accident in

New York.

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

follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the credit

information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Applied for an Insurance Quote with Geico But was Denied the
Best Quote Due to Defendant’s Inaccurate Reporting

80. In or around March 1, 2024, Plaintiff received communication from

Credit Karma that recommended that he apply with Geico Insurance because he may

qualify for a better insurance rate due to his good credit.

81. Thus, in or around March 1, 2024, Plaintiff applied for a quote with

Geico.

82. For Geico to make a determination on Plaintiff’s application, it would

need to obtain copies of his consumer files. Plaintiff provided Geico with his

personal identification information, including his Social Security number, and

authorized it to obtain copies of his consumer files.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
19/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 20 of 36 PageID 20

83. On or about March 1, 2024, Defendant sold a consumer report about

Plaintiff to Geico in response to Plaintiff’s application.

84. On or about March 1, 2024, Plaintiff received a communication from

Geico notifying him that he was not given their best quote based on the consumer

report it received from Defendant.

85. Plaintiff immediately tried to obtain a copy of the consumer report

Defendant sold to Geico. However, on or about March 8, 2024, Plaintiff received a

letter from Defendant stating it was unable to process his request because it was

unable to verify his identity.

Plaintiff Finances a Home and Applies for Swyfft Homeowners Insurance

86. In or around April 2024, Plaintiff was in contract to purchase a home

and applied for financing with DartBank.

87. As part of the financing requirement with DartBank, Plaintiff needed to

obtain homeowners insurance.

88. Therefore, in or around April 2024, a representative of DartBank, on

behalf of Plaintiff, applied for homeowners’ insurance with Swyfft LLC (“Swyfft”).

89. For Swyfft to make a determination on Plaintiff’s application for

homeowners’ insurance, it would need to obtain copies of his consumer files.

Plaintiff, through DartBank, provided Swyfft with his personal identification

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
20/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 21 of 36 PageID 21

information, including his Social Security Number, and authorized it to obtain copies

of his consumer files.

90. In or around April 2024, Defendant sold a consumer report about

Plaintiff to Swyfft in response to Plaintiff’s application.

91. In or around April 2024, Plaintiff was approved by Swyfft for the

homeowner's insurance he needed to purchase his home at a higher than normal rate.

Geico Motivates Plaintiff to Apply for Another Quote in June 2024

92. In or around June 2024, Plaintiff received an email from Geico stating

that he may qualify for a discount due to his excellent credit.

93. Therefore, no or around June 22, 2024, Plaintiff once again applied for

a quote with Geico.

94. For Geico to make a determination on Plaintiff’s application, it would

need to obtain copies of his consumer files. Plaintiff provided Geico with his

personal identification information, including his Social Security number, and

authorized it to obtain copies of her consumer files.

95. On or about June 22, 2024, Defendant sold a consumer report about

Plaintiff to Geico in response to Plaintiff’s application.

96. On or about June 22, 2024, Plaintiff received a communication from

Geico once again notifying him that he was not given their best quote based on the

consumer report it received from Defendant.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
21/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 22 of 36 PageID 22

97. Plaintiff was confused, worried, and shocked at the repeated denials

from Geico to qualify Plaintiff for the discount insurance rate, especially since

Plaintiff believed he had excellent credit.

Plaintiff’s Mixed Credit File as of July 2024
98. Shocked, worried, and confused, Plaintiff immediately requested a

copy of her credit file from Defendant.

99. Finally, on or about July 12, 2024, Plaintiff secured a copy of his credit

file/report from Defendant.

100. Upon reviewing the contents of the July 12, 2024, credit file/report,

Plaintiff was bewildered by the appearance of several pieces of information that did

not belong to Plaintiff at all.

101. Specifically, Defendant was reporting the following insurance policy

and insurance claim records which belong to Plaintiff’s twin brother, and not

Plaintiff:

(a) Record 1 - State Farm Insurance Policy
Policy Number: 321142xxxx
Inception Date: April 2012
Status: Active
Driver’s License Number: XXXXX1936, Plaintiff’s brother’s
Driver’s License Number
Additional Insured: Cecila D Ortiz Proano, Plaintiff’s brother’s
wife

(b) Record 2 – Automobile Insurance Claim
Claim Number: 3253K480B230722
Claim Amount(s): $2,794.00 and $1,000.00 rent reimbursement

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
22/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 23 of 36 PageID 23

Claim Type: Collision
Driver’s License Number: XXXXX1936, Plaintiff’s brother’s
Driver’s License Number
Date of Claim: July 22, 2023

(c) Record 3 – Property Insurance Claim
Claim Number:327172L47082518
Secondary Policyholder: Cecila D Ortiz Proano, Plaintiff’s
brother’s wife
Date of Claim: August 25, 2018

102. Further, Defendant was reporting a Property Deed and Assessor Record

for the property located at , Maspeth, NY 11378, which did not

belong to Plaintiff, and a Department of Driver Services Records showing an Indiana

license that does not belong to Plaintiff either.

103. Further, Defendant was reporting the various addresses, phone number,

and emails, which did not belong to Plaintiff.

104. Further, Defendant was reporting a social security number (“SSN”)

variation ending in 6526, which is completely different from Plaintiff’s SSN, as well

as name variations, including Jhonny G. Ordonez and Mr. Jhonny G. Ordonez,

which does not accurately reflect Plaintiff’s name, but rather reflects the name of

Plaintiff’s twin brother.

105. By reporting the aforementioned records and other personal

information in the credit file presumably about Plaintiff, despite the fact that the

records and information do not belong to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to follow

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
23/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 24 of 36 PageID 24

contained within Plaintiff’s credit files and consumer reports, in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

106. Further, Defendant was also reporting the following account inquiries,

with whom Plaintiff did not have an account relationship:

(a) February 03, 2024 – Demand Deposit from Primis

(b) September 24, 2023 – NetCredit/Republic Bank &Trust

107. Plaintiff did not apply for credit with any of the aforementioned entities

and did not have a relationship with any of the aforementioned entities. Defendant

did not have a permissible purpose for furnishing information about Plaintiff to the

above-referenced entities on the above-referenced dates.

108. Upon information and belief, all three of the above-referenced inquiries

were initiated by credit applications submitted by an unrelated consumer.

109. As Plaintiff had not authorized any of the above-referenced entities to

request Plaintiff’s credit report from Defendant on the above-referenced dates in

2021, nor did Plaintiff enter into any business transaction or relationship which

otherwise may have provided a basis for those entities securing a copy of Plaintiff’s

credit report from Defendant, Defendant disclosed information about Plaintiff to the

above-referenced entities without a permissible purpose and in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
24/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 25 of 36 PageID 25

110. In addition, the July 12, 2024, credit/consumer report included “CLUE”

notes which demonstrate that Plaintiff's brother's auto insurance claim was sent to

the following companies:

(a) Progressive on November 14, 2023;

(b) Geico on March 1, 2024; and

111. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was denied discounted rates for

his automobile insurance applications as a result of Defendant inaccurately reporting

Plaintiff’s brother’s auto insurance claim on the consumer reports it sold to Geico

and Progressive.

112. The CLUE notes also demonstrated that Defendant sold Swyfft a

consumer report in response to Plaintiff’s homeowner’s insurance application

wherein Defendant inaccurately included the following information which, upon

information and belief, belong to Plaintiff's brother:

(a) Name – Ordonez, Jhonny G;

(b) Address – , Maspeth, NY

(d) Grand Total Owed – $320,200.00

(e) Inquiries:

(i) NCCINC/LEXUS OF QUEENS on February 17, 2023; and

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
25/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 26 of 36 PageID 26

(ii) TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CO on February 17, 2023

(f) Credit/Consumer Accounts:

(i) Bank of America account opened June 2022, with partial Account No.

123BC0206;

(ii) Bank of America account account opened November 2004, with partial

Account No. 121BC3727;

(iii) Comenity Capital/Ikeapc account opened February 2019, with

partial Account No. 194HF7623;

(iv) Barclays Bank Delaware account opened February 2018, with

partial Account No. 122BC3850;

(v) THD/CBNA account opened January 2010, with partial Account No.

317ZR8962;

(vi) MACYS/CBNA account opened November 2017, with partial

Account No. 136DZ2830;

(vii) JPMCB Card account opened November 2004, with partial

Account No. 318BC2310;

(viii) Syncb/Lowes account opened February 2010, with partial

Account No. 160LZ7340;

(ix) Syncb/Amazon account opened August 2011, with partial

Account No. 100DV4694;

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
26/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 27 of 36 PageID 27

(x) AMEX/CBNA account opened November 2008, with partial Account

No. 191BC725;

(xi) MACYS/CBNA account opened November 2008, with partial

Account No. 136DZ2830;

(xii) SYNCB/PPC account opened April 2012, with partial Account

No. 284BC8440;

(xiii) SYNCB/AMAZON account opened July 2019, with partial

Account No. 100DV4694;

(xiv) Apple Card/GS Bank USA opened December 2019, with partial

Account No. 179BB5380;

(xv) US Bank account opened July 2013, with partial Account No.

314BB3770;

(xvi) KOHLS/CAPONE account opened February 2013, with partial

Account No. 192DC6781

(xvii) Bank of America account opened June 2013, with partial

Account No. 123BC0206;

(xviii) AMEX/CBNA account opened December 2022, with partial

Account No. 191BC7250;

(xix) Toyota Motor Credit account opened August 2019, with partial

Account No. 160FA2300;

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
27/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 28 of 36 PageID 28

(xx) TD Bank NA/ICON account opened November 2020, with

partial Account No. 196BB8924;

(xxi) Wells Fargo HM Mortgage account opened May 2016, with

partial Account No. 199FM5515;

(xxii) Toyota Motor Credit account opened September 2017, with

partial Account No. 160FA2300;

(xxiii) Toyota Motor Credit Co account opened February 2015, with

partial Account No. 156FP7215;

(xxiv) Municipal Credit Union account opened May 2021, with partial

Account No. 172FC0230;

(xxv) Valley National Bank account opened December 2020, with

partial Account No. 111BB3260; and

(xxvi) Toyota Motor Credit opened February 2023, with partial

Account No. 160FA2300.

113. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was approved for Swyfft

homeowner’s insurance for less favorable terms than he would have been if not for

Defendant inaccurately reporting Plaintiff’s brother’s credit/consumer accounts,

along with other erroneously mixed information, on the consumer report it sold to

Swyfft.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
28/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 29 of 36 PageID 29

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

follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the credit

information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

115. Upon information and belief, because Defendant continues to mix

Plaintiff’s credit file with that of the unrelated consumer, Defendant continues to sell

Plaintiff’s credit file in response to applications and inquiries pertaining to the

unrelated consumer.

116. As a result of the “mixed file,” Defendant made it practically

impossible for Plaintiff to obtain credit.

117. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through their

agents, servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of

their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the

Defendant herein.

118. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant’s conduct, as well as that of its

respective agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless,

grossly negligent and in utter disregard for federal law and the rights of Plaintiff

herein.

119. Defendant is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and

intentionally chooses not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly,

Defendant’s violations of the FCRA are willful.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
29/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 30 of 36 PageID 30

120. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of her right to keep his private

financial information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was

viewing his private financial information and how his private financial information

was improperly implicated in the credit applications of another; damage by loss of

credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from her good credit rating; detriment

to her credit rating; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct

the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of labor and effort disputing and

trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the

mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of discounted

insurance rate denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying

information and credit information, including inquiries, mixed into Plaintiff’s credit

file.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
(First Claim for Relief Against Defendant LNRS)

121. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
30/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 31 of 36 PageID 31

122. The FCRA imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to devise

and implement procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer

reports, as follows:

Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it
shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the
report relates.
15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) (emphasis added).

123. On at least one occasion, Defendant prepared patently false consumer

reports concerning Plaintiff.

124. Defendant mixed another consumer’s personal and credit account

information into Plaintiff’s credit file, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and

ultimately, Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.

125. Defendant Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to

establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy

in the preparation of the credit reports and credit files it published and maintained

concerning Plaintiff.

126. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private

financial information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was

viewing his private financial information and how his private financial information

was improperly implicated in the credit applications of another; damage by loss of

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
31/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 32 of 36 PageID 32

credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good credit rating; detriment

to his credit rating; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct

the inaccurate credit reporting; the expenditure of labor and effort disputing and

trying to correct the inaccurate credit reporting; and emotional distress including the

mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of discounted

insurance rate denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying

information and credit information, including inquiries, mixed into Plaintiff’s credit

file.

127. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering them

liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be

determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, Defendant

was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

128. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant

in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or §

1681o.

COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)
Furnishing a Credit Report Without a Permissible Purpose
(Second Claim for Relief Against Defendant LNRS)
129. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
32/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 33 of 36 PageID 33

130. This action involves the willful, knowing, and/or negligent violation of

the FCRA relating to the dissemination of consumer credit and other financial

information.

131. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the FCRA.

132. Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that furnishes consumer

reports as defined and contemplated by the FCRA.

133. The FCRA prohibits any consumer reporting agency from furnishing a

consumer report unless it has a permissible purpose enumerated under the FCRA,

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

134. On multiple occasions, Defendant furnished Plaintiff’s credit report to

various entities without a permissible purpose in response to credit applications of

another, which did not involve Plaintiff, and which Defendant therefore had no

reason to believe that those various credit-issuing entities intended to use Plaintiff’s

credit information in connection with a credit transaction involving Plaintiff, in

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a).

135. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a) by selling Plaintiff’s credit

report to third parties, whom did not have a permissible purpose to Plaintiff’s credit

report, in relation to the credit application of an unrelated consumer.

136. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private

Jhonny Erik Ordonez v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
33/36 COMPLAINT
Case 6:24-cv-01488-JSS-LHP Document 1 Filed 08/14/24 Page 34 of 36 PageID 34

financial information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was

viewing her private financial information and how his private financial information