Amended Complaint — Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (Middle District of Florida)

Summary

An Amended Complaint in Jack Dempsay versus LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. and SageStream, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Document 25, filed August 26, 2024. Dempsay alleges that the defendants, described as consumer reporting agencies, reported to potential creditors that Dempsay is "deceased." The complaint brings claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, including failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). It asks the Court to find negligent or willful violations and award actual, statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees, and it demands a jury trial.

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

Cite this document

“Amended Complaint — Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. (Middle District of Florida).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/25-amended-complaint-against-lexisnexis-risk-solutions-inc-and-cf0d48033b/, SHA-256 8d2c34aa85ef0a9f0af8536a27a9491070f692f000acffc6cc536f205673fef6.

Full text

Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 1 of 24 PageID 287

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

JACK DEMPSAY, Case No.: 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL

Plaintiff,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC. and SAGESTREAM, LLC

Defendants.

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jack Dempsay (Plaintiff” or “Mr. Dempsay”) a living, breathing 79-year-old

consumer, brings this action on an individual basis, against LexisNexis Risk

Solutions, Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and SageStream, LLC, (“SageStream”) (each a

“Defendant” and collectively, the “Defendants”) and states as follows:

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,

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
1/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 2 of 24 PageID 288

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, Defendant acknowledges this potential for misuse and resulting damage every

time they sell their respective 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, potential employers, and other similar interested

parties), commonly called "consumer reports," concerning individuals who may be

applying for retail credit, 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

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
2/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 3 of 24 PageID 289

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

individual consumers.

6. One of the primary purposes in requiring CRAs to assure "maximum

possible accuracy" of consumer information is to ensure the stability of our banking

system:

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.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1).

7. 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).

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

to determine whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
3/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 4 of 24 PageID 290

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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendants’ blatantly inaccurate

reporting, wherein Defendants reported to Plaintiff’s potential creditors that he is

"deceased."

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
4/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 5 of 24 PageID 291

12. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for failing to

follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s

credit reports, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

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

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

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

herein.

PARTIES

14. Jack Dempsay (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Dempsay”) is a natural person

residing in Sumter County, Florida, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).

15. Defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. ("Defendant" or

"LexisNexis") is a Delaware corporation doing business throughout the United

States, including the State of Minnesota 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.

16. LexisNexis is a "consumer reporting agency" as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

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

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
5/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 6 of 24 PageID 292

and disseminating information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing

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

17. Defendant SageStream, LLC (“Defendant SageStream” or

“SageStream”), is a Delaware limited liability company that does business

throughout the United Stated, including the State of Alabama and in this District.

SageStream maintains its principal place of business at 1000 Alderman Drive,

Alpharetta, GA 30005. SageStream can be served at its registered agent at CT

Corporation System, 330 N. Brand Blvd, Glendale, CA 91203.

18. Defendant SageStream is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in

15 U.S.C. §1681a(f). SageStream 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.

19. As the sole member of SageStream, LexisNexis both owns and

controls SageStream.

20. The CFPB’s website indicates that “LexisNexis Risk Solutions owns

SageStream” and that SageStream and LexisNexis share a mailing address, as shown

below:

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
6/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 7 of 24 PageID 293

Source: CFPB’s List of Consumer Reporting Agencies,
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/credit-reports-and-
scores/consumerreporting-companies/companies-list/?title=sagestream (last visited July
12, 2024).

21. SageStream’s official logo touts that it is “Part of LexisNexis Risk

Solutions,” as shown below:

22. LexisNexis’s name and logo are prominently displayed on

SageStream’s official website.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
7/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 8 of 24 PageID 294

23. The relationship between SageStream and LexisNexis goes far beyond

common ownership. Rather, virtually every aspect of SageStream’s operations and

FCRA compliance are performed by LexisNexis. For example:

(a) SageStream does not process consumer disputes regarding inaccurate

information contained in the consumer’s SageStream file.

(b) SageStream does not fulfill requests for Consumer reports.

(d) SageStream does not process consumer requests to be removed from the

prescreen lists used by creditors and insurers for sending unsolicited offers of

credit or insurance.

24. Moreover, SageStream relies on LexisNexis’s operational and

informational infrastructure to prepare consumer reports.

25. For example, when an end-user purchases a consumer report from

SageStreams, SageStream draws on data supplied by supplied by LNRS regarding

that consumer.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26. 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.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
8/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 9 of 24 PageID 295

27. 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.

FACTS

Summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

28. 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

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

information.

29. 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).

30. 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).

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
9/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 10 of 24 PageID 296

31. 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).

32. 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.

Defendants’ Practices Concerning the Sale of Reports on the “Deceased”
33. Defendants sells millions of consumer reports (often called "credit

reports" or "reports") per day.

34. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies, like

Defendants, are required "to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum

possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the

report relates."

35. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b and 1681e(a), consumer reporting

agencies, like Defendants, must maintain reasonable procedures to assure that

consumer reports are sold only for legitimate "permissible purposes."

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
10/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 11 of 24 PageID 297

36. Defendants routinely places a "deceased" notation or marking on

reports when it is advised by any of its many data sources that a given consumer is

deceased.

37. Defendants do not request or require a death certificate from any of its

data sources which advise that a consumer is "deceased" before placing a "deceased"

mark in that consumer's credit file.

38. Defendants do not request or require any proof from any data source

which advises that a consumer is "deceased," showing that the consumer is in fact

deceased before placing a "deceased" mark on that consumer's report.

39. Defendants do not independently verify with any source that a

consumer is in fact deceased before placing a "deceased" mark on that consumer's

report.

40. In some cases, in order to assure accuracy, Defendants may send letters

and/or other communications to consumers when certain information that may be

considered suspicious or unreliable is furnished about said consumers to be placed

in their credit files, such as in cases where consumers have a freeze or fraud alert on

their credit report, or in accordance with certain state laws, such as the consumer

laws of Florida. Defendant do not have any procedure to notify consumers (such as

a next of kin or executor or administrator of the consumer's estate) when Defendants

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
11/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 12 of 24 PageID 298

have received information suggesting the consumer is deceased before adding that

information to the consumer’s credit file or report.

41. The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains the Death Master

File (“DMF”). The DMF is also known commercially as the Social Security Death

Index (SSDI). The SSA’s DMF as of 2018 contained information on 111 million

deaths that have been reported to the SSA. The DMF is created from internal SSA

records of deceased persons possessing social security numbers and whose deaths

were reported to the SSA. The DMF includes the following information on each

decedent, if the data are available to the SSA: social security number, name, date of

birth, and date of death.

42. Legislation (i.e., the Social Security Act) precludes the sharing of the

full DMF with non-benefits paying agencies.

43. Because of the wide use and demand for death records for a variety of

industries, SSA has partnered with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) to release the Limited Access Death Master

File (LADMF) electronically on a weekly and monthly basis.

44. The SSA receives death reports from many sources, including family

members, funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, state information,

and other federal agencies. The SSA does not have a death record for all persons;

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
12/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 13 of 24 PageID 299

therefore, the SSA does not guarantee the veracity of the DMF. The SSA does not

guarantee 100% of the data.

45. The SSA estimates that roughly 12,000 living people are added to the

DMF annually, potentially due to clerical error. An erroneous listing can lead to not

only a cessation of government benefits, but also the freezing of bank accounts, the

inability to buy or rent property, and mistaken accusations of identity theft.1 2

46. The Office of the Inspector General called the error rate “very low,” but

noted that “SSA’s erroneous death entries can lead to mistaken benefit terminations

and cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected people…when errors like

this occur, it can be a long and difficult process to resurrect your financial health.3

47. Defendant SageStream does not have access to the full DMF and is not

a subscriber to the LAMDF.

48. When SageStream prepares a consumer report, LNRS, which is a

subscriber to the NTIS LAMDF, communicates information to SageStream on

whether a consumer is deceased.

49. Defendant LexisNexis does not have access to the full DMF from the

SSA, but rather is a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF.

1
Aviva Dekornfeld (2018-06-20). "The Plight of the Living Dead". The Indicator from Planet Money (Podcast).
2
Bichell, Rae Ellen (2016-08-10). "Social Security Data Errors Can Turn People into the Living Dead". National
Public Radio.
3
"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.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
13/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 14 of 24 PageID 300

50. Despite being a subscriber to the NTIS LADMF, Defendants do not

cross-reference the information it has received suggesting a consumer is deceased

with the LADMF in order to determine whether any given consumer reported as

deceased via its source is also on the LADMF before selling a credit report about

said consumer, or at any time.

51. Defendants fail to employ reasonable procedures that assure that a

consumer is actually deceased before placing the "deceased" mark on that

consumer's report and selling that report for profit.

52. Even in instances where other data on the face of the consumer's report

indicates that he/she is not deceased, Defendants do not employ any procedures to

assure that a consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the "deceased"

mark in that consumer's file.

53. Even in instances where the purportedly deceased consumer

communicates directly with the Defendants, Defendant do not employ any

procedures to assure that a consumer is in fact actually deceased before placing the

"deceased" mark on that consumer's report.

54. Defendants know that living consumers are routinely turned down for

credit specifically because they are reporting them as "deceased."

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
14/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 15 of 24 PageID 301

55. Defendants have been put on notice for years through consumer

disputes and lawsuits that living, breathing consumers are turned down for credit

specifically because Defendants are inaccurately reporting them as "deceased."

56. Defendants have received and documented many disputes from

consumers complaining that Defendant had erroneously marked them as "deceased”

on their credit reports.

57. Defendants know that thousands of consumers are erroneously marked

as "deceased" on their credit reports.

58. Nevertheless, Defendants do not employ any procedures to assure that

a consumer is actually deceased before adding a “deceased” notation to that

consumers credit reports.

59. Defendants do not employ any procedures to limit or stop the furnishing

of reports to third parties for consumers that they have marked as "deceased" under

any circumstances.

60. For years after a consumer's actual death, Defendants will continue to

sell credit reports about that consumer.

61. Defendants will only remove a deceased consumer's file from its

respective credit reporting databases when it is no longer valuable to them—

meaning that no one is continuing to purchase reports about that consumer.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
15/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 16 of 24 PageID 302

62. Defendants charge third parties a fee for reports with a mark that a

consumer is deceased ("reports on the deceased") as they would for any other report.

63. Defendants profit from the sale of reports on deceased consumers.

64. Defendants know that truly deceased consumers do not apply for credit.

65. Defendants know that the credit information and reports of truly

deceased persons are used by criminals to commit identity theft or credit fraud.

Indeed, identity theft using the personal identifying information of deceased

consumers is known to Defendanst to be a common and major source of identity

theft.

66. Defendants know that identity theft and credit fraud are serious and

widespread problems in our society.

67. Defendants sell reports on supposedly deceased consumers to third

parties in an automated fashion and without any specific or general certification that

could reasonably explain a "permissible purpose" for purchasing or using a

(supposedly) deceased consumer's credit history and/or report.

68. For consumers who are deceased, there rarely, if ever, exists a

permissible purpose under the FCRA for the Defendants to sell their credit reports,

absent a court order.

69. Defendants know that such reports contain a vast amount of personal

identifying and credit account information on the supposedly deceased consumer,

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
16/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 17 of 24 PageID 303

information that can be used to commit identity theft or for other fraudulent

purposes.

Plaintiff’s Need for Surgery

70. On or about September 18, 2023, Plaintiff had an accident and broke

two of his teeth.

71. Accordingly, Plaintiff went to Sumter Landing Dental Care PLLC

(“Sumter Dental”), a very reputable dental surgeon in Plaintiff’s local area.

72. The dental surgeon advised Plaintiff that he would need to get the roots

for the missing teeth removed before obtaining a bridge and/or other teeth

replacements.

73. Plaintiff was in an extensive amount of pain and was consequently

forced to go on a liquid food diet in order to avoid the pain associated with eating

solid foods in his condition. Plaintiff’s cost of the liquid food diet is approximately

$50.00 a week.

Plaintiff Applied for Credit with CareCredit to Help Pay for his Oral Surgery

74. On or about October 15, 2023, Plaintiff applied for credit with

CareCredit, which is serviced by Synchrony Bank (“Synchrony”).

75. CareCredit offers consumers financing options with payment plans at

no interest for a set period.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
17/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 18 of 24 PageID 304

76. Plaintiff’s total out-of-pocket expenses for his desperately needed oral

surgery with Sumter Dental would be $16,000.00 and Plaintiff was relying heavily

on the financial assistance from CareCredit to help pay for such a medical expense.

Synchrony Denies Plaintiff’s Credit Application to CareCredit
77. Synchrony ordered a consumer report about Plaintiff from LexisNexis

and/or SageStream on or about October 15, 2023.

78. Shortly thereafter, on or about October 15, 2023, Defendants published

information on a report about Plaintiff to Synchrony with regards to Plaintiff’s credit

application.

79. Defendants provided Synchrony with a report about Plaintiff wherein

Defendants stated that Plaintiff was deceased, and upon receipt and review of such

report, Synchrony denied Plaintiff’s credit card application.

80. Synchrony specifically stated in its denial letter that “Your request was

denied” because “Credit bureau reports applicant as deceased,” and further listed

Defendants as the source of such report.

81. Plaintiff was extremely saddened and frustrated by Synchrony’s

CareCredit denial. Certainly, Plaintiff was not deceased. Plaintiff found such

information to be very distressing and confusing, even shocking. Plaintiff felt

helpless and did not know what to do so he sought other avenues to get the surgery

that he needed.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
18/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 19 of 24 PageID 305

Plaintiff Found a Dentist Covered by his Insurance to Perform the Oral
Surgery
82. Several months later, after a painful and strenuous search for a dentist

that would perform the surgery through Plaintiff’s United Healthcare insurance,

Plaintiff was able to complete the surgery with Dr. Sulaiman Alshaar at Aspen

Dental on January 30, 2024.

83. Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket costs for the surgery with Aspen Dental was

approximately $105.00.

84. Unfortunately, the dentist at Aspen Dental blundered the surgery and,

instead of removing the problematic roots, removed two other teeth from Plaintiff’s

mouth.

85. Plaintiff reasonably believes that such malpractice would not have

occurred had he done his surgery with Sumter Dental.

86. As of the date hereof, Plaintiff remains on his insufferable restrictive

liquid diet, continues to be in pain from his oral infection and has yet to obtain the

medical care that he desperately needs to have a normal functioning life.

87. On multiple occasions Plaintiff attempted to retain a different dental

surgeon to correct the surgery, but was unsuccessful because the dental surgeons

were not willing to perform the surgery. Upon information and belief, the dental

surgeons were worried that they may be implicated in any potential lawsuit for

malpractice.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
19/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 20 of 24 PageID 306

Plaintiff Obtains His Consumer Report from Experian and Trans Union and
Continued to Receive Social Security Assistance (“SSA”) Benefits

88. In or about January 29, 2023, Plaintiff obtained his consumer report

from Experian and Trans Union.

89. Upon review, there was no indication that Experian or Trans Union

were reporting Plaintiff as deceased.

90. In addition, since the accident, and through the date hereof, Plaintiff has

not had any issues and continues to receive his SSA benefits.

91. Plaintiff also had active tradeline accounts in or around October 2023,

which Plaintiff continued to make timely payments on.

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

follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer

information it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.

93. As a result of the inaccurate and egregious deceased notation,

Defendants made it practically impossible for Plaintiff to obtain the credit needed to

pay for proper oral surgery performed by a competent dentist.

94. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through its

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

Defendants herein.

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
20/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 21 of 24 PageID 307

95. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants, 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.

96. Defendants are aware of the shortcomings of its procedures and

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

the Defendants’ violations of the FCRA are willful.

97. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his

good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; pain and suffering due to his

inability to purchase and/or obtain proper medical care; severe weight loss due to his

dietary restrictions; the cost of the maintaining the liquid food diet; and emotional

distress including: (i) the mental and emotional pain anguish, humiliation and

embarrassment of missing teeth and having a restrictive liquid diet for several

months since Plaintiff’s accident, and (ii) the mental and emotional pain, anguish,

humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denials.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible
Accuracy

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
21/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 22 of 24 PageID 308

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

forth in preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.

99. 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).

100. On numerous occasions, Defendants prepared patently false consumer

reports concerning Plaintiff.

101. Despite actual and implied knowledge that Plaintiff is not dead,

Defendants readily sold such false reports to one or more third parties, thereby

misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately Plaintiff’s creditworthiness.

102. Defendants 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 consumer reports it published and maintained concerning

Plaintiff.

103. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his

good credit rating; detriment to his credit rating; pain and suffering due to his

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
22/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 23 of 24 PageID 309

inability to purchase and/or obtain proper medical care; severe weight loss due to his

dietary restrictions; the cost of maintaining the liquid food diet; and emotional

distress including: (i) the mental and emotional pain anguish, humiliation and

embarrassment of missing teeth and having a restrictive liquid diet for several

months since Plaintiff’s accident, and (ii) the mental and emotional pain, anguish,

humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denials.

104. Defendants’ conduct, actions, and inactions were willful, rendering it

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, they were

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

105. 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.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

i. Determining that Defendants negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;

ii. Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the

FCRA;

iii. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the

FCRA; and,

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
23/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 5:24-cv-00176-JSM-PRL Document 25 Filed 08/26/24 Page 24 of 24 PageID 310

iv. Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate

and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so

triable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of August 2024

CONSUMER ATTORNEYS

/s/ David Pinkhasov
David Pinkhasov, Bar No. 1040933
72-47 139th Street
Flushing, NY 11367
T: (718) 701-4605
dpinkhasov@consumerattorneys.com
/s/ Catherine Tillman
Catherine Tillman, Esq., FL #0057663
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
8095 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
T: (941) 263-7310
F: (718) 715-1750
E: ctillman@consumerattorneys.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Jack Dempsay

Jack Dempsay v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc.
24/24 and SageStream, LLC
AMENDED COMPLAINT

File and source

File: 25-amended-complaint-against-lexisnexis-risk-solutions-inc-and-.pdf
Size: 669,905 bytes
SHA-256: 8d2c34aa85ef0a9f0af8536a27a9491070f692f000acffc6cc536f205673fef6
Our copy: 25-amended-complaint-against-lexisnexis-risk-solutions-inc-and-.pdf
Original: No public link identified.