Complaint And Jury Trial

Date: 2025-01-11

Summary

A complaint and jury trial demand filed January 11, 2025 as Document 1 in Joseph Albert Lujan v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. The complaint brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785, et seq. It alleges the defendant reported to potential creditors that the plaintiff is "deceased" and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.14. It describes the defendant's deceased-notation practices and the Death Master File. The prayer seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, fees and costs; the 23-page complaint is signed by Andrew J. Gramajo of AJG Law Group, PC.

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 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1

1 Andrew J. Gramajo, CA # 338144
2 AJG LAW GROUP, PC.
25A Crescent Dr. #402
3 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
4 T:(415) 638-9140
E: Andrew@Ajglawgroup.us
5
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Joseph Albert Lujan
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 EASTERN DIVISION
10
11 JOSEPH ALBERT LUJAN, Case No.:
12
Plaintiff,
13 vs. JURY TRAIL DEMANDED
14
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS 1. FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et. seq.
15 INC., 2. Cal. Civ. Code § 1785 et seq.
16
Defendant.
17
18
COMPLAINT
19
20 Joseph Albert Lujan (“Plaintiff”) a living, breathing 47-year-old consumer,
21
brings this action on an individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
22
(“LexisNexis” or “Defendant”) for actual, statutory, and punitive damages and costs,
23
24 and attorney’s fees, for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
25
U.S.C. § 1681, et. seq., and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
26
27
(“CCRAA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785, et. seq. and states as follows:

28
1
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:2

1 INTRODUCTION
2
1. The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary
3
4 increase in the accumulation and processing of data concerning individual American

5 consumers. Data technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks, the Internal
6
Revenue Service or other institutions, allows information concerning individual
7
8 consumers to flow instantaneously to requesting parties. Such timely information is
9 intended to lead to faster and better decision-making by its recipients and, in theory,
10
all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting convenience and efficiency.
11
12 2. However, unfortunately this information has also become readily
13 available for, and subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and
14
do sustain substantial damage, both economically and emotionally, whenever
15
16 inaccurate or fraudulent information is disseminated and/or obtained about them. In
17 fact, Defendant acknowledges this potential for misuse and resulting damage every
18
time it sells its respective services to a consumer.
19
20 3. The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have
21 resulted in a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning
22
individuals' credit histories and other personal information. Such companies are
23
24 commonly known as consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs").
25
4. These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e.,
26
retailers, landlords, lenders, potential employers, and other similar interested parties),
27
28
2
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:3

1 commonly called "consumer reports," concerning individuals who may be applying
2
for retail credit, housing, employment, or a car or mortgage loan.
3
4 5. Since 1970, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

5 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), federal law has required CRAs to implement and
6
utilize reasonable procedures "to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the
7
8 personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell about
9 individual consumers.
10
6. One of the primary purposes in requiring CRAs to assure "maximum
11
12 possible accuracy" of consumer information is to ensure the stability of our banking
13 system:
14
The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit
15 reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the
16 banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the
public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the
17 banking system.
18
See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).
19
20 7. The preservation of one's good name and reputation is also at the heart
21 of the FCRA's purposes:
22
[W]ith the trend toward computerization of billings and the
23
establishment of all sorts of computerized data banks, the individual is
24 in great danger of having his life and character reduced to impersonal
"blips" and key-punch holes in a stolid and unthinking machine which
25
can literally ruin his reputation without cause, and make him
26 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
27
over the possible mistaken turn-down of a consumer for a luxury item
28 as we are over the possible destruction of his good name without his
3
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:4

1 knowledge and without reason. Shakespeare said, the loss of one's good
2 name is beyond price and makes one poor indeed.

3 Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 Cong. Rec. 36570
4
(1970)] (emphasis added).
5
6 8. The FCRA also requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
7 to determine whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record the
8
current status of the disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before
9
10 the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the CRA receives the
11 notice of dispute from the consumer. This mandate exists to ensure that consumer
12
disputes are handled in a timely manner and that inaccurate information contained
13
14 within a consumer's credit report is corrected and/or deleted so as to not prevent said
15 consumer from benefiting from his or her credit and obtaining new credit.
16
9. In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically
17
18 noted "a need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness,
19 impartiality, and respect for the consumer's right to privacy." See 15 U. S.C. §
20
1681(a)(4).
21
22 10. The FCRA also requires furnishers of information, a creditor or other
23
third party that provides information about consumer to a CRA, upon notice, to
24
conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of all disputes with regard to the completeness
25
26 or accuracy of any information it provides to the CRAs regarding a consumer and
27
28
4
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:5

1 modify, delete, or permanently block any items of information found to be inaccurate,
2
incomplete, or unverifiable after said reinvestigation is completed.
3
4 11. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendant's blatantly inaccurate reporting,

5 wherein Defendant reported to Plaintiff’s potential creditors that he is "deceased."
6
12. Defendant communicated to one or more third parties that Plaintiff’s
7
8 name, date of birth, address and social security number were associated with that of
9 a deceased person.
10
13. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for failing to
11
12 follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s
13 credit reports, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and Cal. Civ. Code §
14
1785.14.
15
16 14. As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive
17 damages, costs and attorneys' fees from Defendant for its willful and/or negligent
18
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and Cal. Civ.
19
20 Code § 1785.14. as described herein.
21 PARTIES
22
15. Joseph Albert Lujan (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person residing in Chino
23
24 Hills, California, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c)
25
and Cal Civ. Code § 1785.3(b).
26
16. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. ("Defendant" or
27
28 "LexisNexis") is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout the United
5
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:6

1 States, including the State of California and in this District, and has a principal place
2
of business located at 1000 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. LexisNexis
3
4 can be served at its registered agent, C T Corporation System, located at 289 S Culver

5 St, Lawrenceville, GA, 30046-4805.
6
17. LexisNexis is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
7
8 1681a(f). LexisNexis is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating,
9 and disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
10
consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) to third parties.
11
12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13 18. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
14
§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought
15
16 in any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.
17 19. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
18
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims
19
20 occurred in this District.
21 FACTS
22
Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
23
24 20. The FCRA governs the conduct of consumer reporting agencies in an
25
effort to preserve the integrity of the consumer banking system and to protect the
26
rights of consumers to fairness and accuracy in the reporting of their credit
27
28 information.
6
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:7

1 21. The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from the harmful effects
2
of inaccurate information reported in consumer reports (commonly referred to as
3
4 “credit reports”). Thus, Congress enshrined the principles of “fair and accurate credit

5 reporting” and the “need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their
6
grave responsibilities with fairness” in the very first provision of the FCRA. See 15
7
8 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
9 22. Specifically, the statute was intended to ensure that “consumer reporting
10
agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for
11
12 consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is
13 fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy,
14
relevancy, and proper utilization of such information. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
15
16 23. To that end, the FCRA imposes the following twin duties on consumer
17 reporting agencies: (i) consumer reporting agencies must devise and implement
18
reasonable procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of information
19
20 contained in consumer reports (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)); and (ii) consumer reporting
21 agencies must reinvestigate the facts and circumstances surrounding a consumer’s
22
dispute and timely correct any inaccuracies (15 U.S.C. § 1681i).
23
24 24. The FCRA provides consumers with a private right of action against
25
consumer reporting agencies that willfully or negligently fail to comply with their
26
statutory obligations under the FCRA.
27
28
7
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:8

1 Defendant’s Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”
2
25. Defendant sells millions of consumer reports (often called "credit
3
4 reports" or "reports") per day.

5 26. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like
6
Defendant, are required "to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
7
8 possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the
9 report relates."
10
27. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting
11
12 agencies, like Defendant, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that
13 consumer reports are sold only for legitimate "permissible purposes."
14
28. Defendant routinely places a "deceased" notation or marking on reports
15
16 when it is advised by any of its many data sources that a given consumer is deceased.
17 29. Defendant does not request or require a death certificate from any of its
18
data sources which advise that a consumer is "deceased" before placing a "deceased"
19
20 mark in that consumer's credit file.
21 30. Defendant does not request or require any proof from any data source
22
which advises that a consumer is "deceased," showing that the consumer is in fact
23
24 deceased before placing a "deceased" mark on that consumer's report.
25
31. Defendant does not independently verify with any source that a
26
consumer is in fact deceased before placing a "deceased" mark on that consumer's
27
28 report.
8
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:9

1 32. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendant may send letters
2
and/or other communications to consumers when certain information that may be
3
4 considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished about said consumers to be placed in

5 their credit files, such as in cases where consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on
6
their credit report, or in accordance with certain state laws, such as the consumer laws
7
8 of Colorado. Defendant does not have any procedure to notify consumers (such as a
9 next of kin or executor or administrator of the consumer's estate) when Defendant
10
has received information suggesting the consumer is deceased before adding that
11
12 information to the consumer’s credit file or report.
13 33. The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains the Death Master
14
File (“DMF”). The DMF is also known commercially as the Social Security Death
15
16 Index (SSDI). The SSA’s DMF as of 2018 contained information on 111 million
17 deaths that have been reported to the SSA. The DMF is created from internal SSA
18
records of deceased persons possessing social security numbers and whose deaths
19
20 were reported to the SSA. The DMF includes the following information on each
21 decedent, if the data are available to the SSA: social security number, name, date of
22
birth, and date of death.
23
24 34. Legislation (i.e., the Social Security Act) precludes the sharing of the
25
full DMF with non-benefits paying agencies.
26
35. Because of the wide use and demand for death records for a variety of
27
28 industries, SSA has partnered with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National
9
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 10 of 23 Page ID
#:10

1 Technical Information Service (NTIS) to release the Limited Access Death Master
2
File (LADMF) electronically on a weekly and monthly basis.
3
4 36. The SSA receives death reports from many sources, including family

5 members, funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, state information,
6
and other federal agencies. The SSA does not have a death record for all persons;
7
8 therefore, the SSA does not guarantee the veracity of the DMF. The SSA does not
9 guarantee 100% of the data.
10
37. The SSA estimates that roughly 12,000 living people are added to the
11
12 DMF annually, potentially due to clerical error. An erroneous listing can lead to not
13 only a cessation of government benefits, but also the freezing of bank accounts, the
14
inability to buy or rent property, and mistaken accusations of identity theft.1 2
15
16 38. The Office of the Inspector General called the error rate “very low,” but
17 noted that “SSA’s erroneous death entries can lead to mistaken benefit terminations
18
and cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected people…when errors like
19
20 this occur, it can be a long and difficult process to resurrect your financial health.3
21 39. Defendant does not have access to the full DMF from the SSA, but
22
rather is a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF.
23
24
25 1
Aviva Dekornfeld (2018-06-20). "The Plight of the Living Dead". The Indicator
26 from Planet Money (Podcast).
2
Bichell, Rae Ellen (2016-08-10). "Social Security Data Errors Can Turn People into
27 the Living Dead". National Public Radio.
3
28 "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.
10
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 11 of 23 Page ID
#:11

1 40. Despite being a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF, Defendant does not
2
cross-reference the information it has received suggesting a consumer is deceased
3
4 with the LADMF in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as

5 deceased via its source is also on the LADMF before selling a credit report about said
6
consumer, or at any time.
7
8 41. Defendant fails to employ reasonable procedures that assure that a
9 consumer is actually deceased before placing the "deceased" mark on that consumer's
10
report and selling that report for profit.
11
12 42. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer's report
13 indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendant does not employ any procedures to
14
assure that a consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the "deceased" mark
15
16 in that consumer's file.
17 43. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer
18
communicates directly with the Defendant, Defendant does not employ any
19
20 procedures to assure that a consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the
21 "deceased" mark on that consumer's report.
22
44. Defendant knows that living consumers are routinely turned down for
23
24 credit specifically because they are reporting them as "deceased."
25
45. Defendant has been put on notice for years through consumer disputes
26
and lawsuits that living, breathing consumers are turned down for credit specifically
27
28 because Defendant is inaccurately reporting them as "deceased."
11
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 12 of 23 Page ID
#:12

1 46. Defendant has received and documented many disputes from consumers
2
complaining that Defendant had erroneously marked them as "deceased” on their
3
4 credit reports.

5 47. Defendant knows that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked
6
as "deceased" on their credit reports.
7
8 48. Nevertheless, Defendant does not employ any procedures to assure that
9 a consumer is actually deceased before adding a “deceased” notation to that consumer
10
credit reports.
11
12 49. Defendant does not employ any procedures to limit or stop the
13 furnishing of reports to third parties for consumers that they have marked as
14
"deceased" under any circumstances.
15
16 50. For years after a consumer's actual death, Defendant will continue to sell
17 credit reports about that consumer.
18
51. Defendant will only remove a deceased consumer's file from its
19
20 respective credit reporting databases when it is no longer valuable to it—meaning
21 that no one is continuing to purchase reports about that consumer.
22
52. Defendant charges third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a
23
24 consumer is deceased ("reports on the deceased") as they would for any other report.
25
53. Defendant profits from the sale of reports on deceased consumers.
26
54. Defendant knows that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.
27
28
12
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 13 of 23 Page ID
#:13

1 55. Defendant knows that the credit information and reports of truly
2
deceased persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud.
3
4 Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying information of deceased

5 consumers is known to Defendant to be a common and major source of identity theft.
6
56. Defendant knows that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and
7
8 widespread problems in our society.
9 57. Defendant sells reports on supposedly deceased consumers to third
10
parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification that
11
12 could reasonably explain a "permissible purpose" for purchasing or using a
13 (supposedly) deceased consumer's credit history and/or report.
14
58. For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a
15
16 permissible purpose under the FCRA for the Defendant to sell their credit reports,
17 absent a court order.
18
59. Defendant knows that such reports contain a vast amount of personal
19
20 identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer,
21 information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent purposes.
22
Plaintiff Applied for a Capital One Credit Card December 2024
23
24 60. In or about December 2024, Plaintiff set out to establish a more robust
25
credit profile, recognizing the value of an established and fortified credit history.
26
Plaintiff further intended to secure a line of credit to establish a financial security net
27
28
13
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 14 of 23 Page ID
#:14

1 to protect himself in the case of piling expenses that he does not have the funds to
2
cover.
3
4 61. Plaintiff reviewed varying credit card application options and

5 encountered a desirable Capital One offer.
6
62. Accordingly, on or about December 2, 2024, Plaintiff completed and
7
8 submitted an application for credit with Capital One.
9 Capital One Denies Plaintiff’s Credit Card Application December 2024
10
63. Capital One ordered a consumer report about Plaintiff from Defendant
11
12 on or about December 2, 2024.
13 64. Defendant published information about Plaintiff to Capital One in
14
response to that credit application, on or about December 2, 2024.
15
16 65. Upon receipt and review of Defendant’s report about Plaintiff, Capital
17 One denied Plaintiff’s credit card application.
18
66. Specifically, Capital One denied Plaintiff’s credit card application
19
20 because Defendant reported that Plaintiff was deceased. This was communicated to
21 Plaintiff on a Capital One denial letter dated to December 2, 2024.
22
67. Capital One denied Plaintiff’s credit card application based upon the
23
24 contents of a consumer report Defendant sold about Plaintiff.
25
68. Plaintiff was disappointed at the Capital One credit card denial.
26
Certainly, Plaintiff was not deceased. Plaintiff found that information to be very
27
28 distressing and confusing, even shocking.
14
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 15 of 23 Page ID
#:15

1 Plaintiff Obtains His Consumer Report and Confirms that Defendant Was
2 Reporting Him as Deceased

3 69. On or about December 10, 2024, Plaintiff obtained and reviewed his
4
LexisNexis consumer report dated to December 3, 2024.
5
6 70. Upon his review, Plaintiff discovered that in the “Identification
7 Records” section of the subject consumer report, Defendant reported a death date of
8
March 5, 2004.
9
10 71. Plaintiff further discovered a Capital One inquiry dated to December 2,
11 2024, demonstrating that this erroneous death date, and thus deceased reporting, was
12
published to Capital One.
13
14 72. Defendant had every reason to know that Plaintiff did not die in March
15 of 2004, including the many credit applications submitted by Plaintiff, the many
16
credit accounts opened, and the many payments made since then.
17
18 73. Out of concern and distress for his credit health and profile, Plaintiff
19 even searched through the Death Master File records to verify if any documentation
20
is causing such an egregiously inaccurate reporting to be furnished to his prospective
21
22 creditors, but Plaintiff was unable to locate any document evidencing same.
23
74. Being unable to fathom the basis of such a reporting, Plaintiff even
24
resorted to the Social Security Administration to ensure that no deceased remark was
25
26 associated with his social security number.
27
28
15
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 16 of 23 Page ID
#:16

1 75. Specifically, on or about December 9, 2024, Plaintiff logged onto the
2
Social Security Administration website to ensure that his social security number was
3
4 active, and confirmed that it was, with no deceased notation therewith.

5 76. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to
6
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer
7
8 information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
9 77. Defendant further violated and Cal Civ. Code § 1785.3(b) by failing to
10
establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy
11
12 of the consumer information it maintained and published concerning Plaintiff.
13 78. As a result of the deceased notation, Defendant made it practically
14
impossible for Plaintiff to continue to obtain credit.
15
16 79. This situation has placed a significant and multifaceted burden on
17 Plaintiff, both financially and personally. The inaccurate credit reporting has
18
aggravated his pre-existing health conditions, manifesting as chronic stress and
19
20 anxiety, which have, in turn, led to persistent headaches, insomnia, and depression.
21 Furthermore, Plaintiff was compelled to devote substantial time and effort to
22
investigating and addressing these inaccuracies—valuable time that could have been
23
24 more productively spent fulfilling professional responsibilities or engaging
25
meaningfully with family and friends.
26
80. Additionally, the Defendant's erroneous deceased notation severely
27
28 diminished and entirely undermined Plaintiff’s creditworthiness by creating the false
16
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 17 of 23 Page ID
#:17

1 impression that fraudulent credit applications were being submitted in Plaintiff’s
2
name. This misrepresentation effectively precluded Plaintiff from securing credit
3
4 from any creditor who relied on such inaccurate reports in evaluating his applications.

5 81. Specifically, in addition to the distressing denial by Capital One,
6
Plaintiff submitted a credit application to Bank of America on December 2, 2024, to
7
8 address his pressing financial needs. However, on that same day, Bank of America
9 promptly denied Plaintiff's credit application as well.
10
82. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s credit application with Bank of
11
12 America was denied due to the credit report furnished by Defendant, which
13 inaccurately portrayed Plaintiff as deceased.
14
83. The inability to secure approval for any of the aforementioned credit
15
16 applications left Plaintiff unable to address essential financial obligations, resulting
17 in overdue bills and an inability to cover critical expenses, which further deepened
18
his financial hardship.
19
20 84. The erroneous reporting and its resulting financial repercussions
21 subjected Plaintiff to severe financial strain, triggering heightened anxiety, stress,
22
and periods of depression. These emotional and psychological impacts manifested as
23
24 physical symptoms, including persistent headaches, insomnia, loss of appetite,
25
weight loss, and the aggravation of Plaintiff’s pre-existing health conditions.
26
85. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its
27
28 agents, servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of
17
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 18 of 23 Page ID
#:18

1 their agency or employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the
2
Defendant herein.
3
4 86. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant, as well as that

5 of its respective agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless,
6
grossly negligent and in utter disregard for federal law and the rights of Plaintiff
7
8 herein.
9 87. Defendant is aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and
10
intentionally chooses not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly,
11
12 the Defendant’s violations of the FCRA are willful.
13 88. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
14
suffered damage by loss of credit due to denials, loss of ability to purchase and benefit
15
16 from his good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating and worthiness; and
17 emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,
18
and embarrassment of credit denials, all of which resulted in physical harm to
19
20 Plaintiff.
21 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
22
COUNT I
23
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
24 Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
25
26 89. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
27
forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
28
18
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 19 of 23 Page ID
#:19

1 90. The FCRA imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to devise
2
and implement procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer
3
4 reports, as follows:

5 Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it
6 shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the
7 report relates.
8
15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) (emphasis added).
9
10 91. On at least one occasion, Defendant prepared a patently false consumer
11 report concerning Plaintiff.
12
92. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead,
13
14 Defendant readily sold such a false report to one or more third parties, thereby
15 misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.
16
93. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to
17
18 follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the
19 preparation of the consumer reports it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
20
94. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
21
22 suffered damage by loss of credit due to denials; loss of ability to purchase and
23
benefit from his good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating and worthiness; and
24
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,
25
26 and embarrassment of credit denials, all of which resulted in physical harm to
27
Plaintiff.
28
19
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 20 of 23 Page ID
#:20

1 95. Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering it
2
liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be
3
4 determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, Defendant

5 was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
6
96. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant
7
8 in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or §
9 1681o.
10
COUNT II
11 Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.14
12 Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy
13
14 97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set
15 forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
16
98. Defendant is a “consumer reporting agenc[ies]” as defined by Cal. Civ.
17
18 Code § 1785.3(d).
19 99. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is
20
defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(b).
21
22 100. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned employment report
23
was a “consumer report[s]” as that term is defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3(c).
24
101. Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.14 by failing to establish or
25
26 to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in the
27
28
20
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 21 of 23 Page ID
#:21

1 preparation of the consumer report it sold about Plaintiff especially the information
2
it published within it indicating that Plaintiff was deceased.
3
4 102. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

5 suffered damage by loss of credit due to denials; loss of ability to purchase and
6
benefit from his good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating and worthiness; and
7
8 emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,
9 and embarrassment of credit denials, all of which resulted in physical harm to
10
Plaintiff.
11
12 103. Defendant willfully violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.14 in that its
13 conduct, actions, and inactions were willful, rendering it liable for actual or statutory
14
damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant
15
16 to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31(a)(2). Alternatively, Defendant was negligent, entitling
17 Plaintiff to recover under Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31(a)(1).
18
104. Plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory damages, punitive damages, and
19
20 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant in an amount to be determined
21 by the Court pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31(d), § 1785.31(a)(1) and/or §
22
1785.31(a)(2).
23
24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
26
i. Determining that Defendant negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;
27
28
21
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 22 of 23 Page ID
#:22

1 ii. Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the
2
FCRA;
3
4 iii. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the

5 FCRA;
6
iv. Actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1785.31(a)(1) and/or
7
8 1785.31(a)(2);
9 v. Statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1785.31(a)(1) and/or
10
1785.31(a)(2);
11
12 vi. Punitive damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31(a)(2);
13 vii. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1785.31(d);
14
viii. Punitive damages to be determined at trial, for the sake of example and
15
16 punishing defendant for its malicious conduct, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §
17 3294;
18
ix. Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate
19
20 and just.
21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
23
24
25 Dated: January 11, 2025 /s/ Andrew J. Gramajo
26 Andrew J. Gramajo, CA # 338144
AJG LAW GROUP, PC.
27
25A Crescent Dr. #402
28 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
22
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
Case 5:25-cv-00075-SSS-SP Document 1 Filed 01/11/25 Page 23 of 23 Page ID
#:23

1 T:(415) 638-9140
2 E: Andrew@Ajglawgroup.us

3 Attorneys for Plaintiff
4 Joseph Albert Lujan

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cacd.953860.1.0.pdf
Size: 272,819 bytes
SHA-256: f00b88889bc3c2a8a5186b57ebdef9b51d184a7c7959c11e2a20a20fa35653e5
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cacd.953860.1.0.pdf
Original: www.courtlistener.com

Complaint And Jury Trial

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records