CreditCourt Forum 2004 Credit Suit Blog CreditCourt & BayHouse Newsletter BayHouse FAQ Fight Back!!! Forum CreditFactors CreditForum.org CreditCourt Forum

Pro Se suing in TX - $500 per violati... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

CreditCourt Forum » Links to articles, case law, etc » Pro Se suing in TX - $500 per violation as per TX State law « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christine Baker (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 26
Registered: 08-2002
Posted on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 07:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Repost from Pro Se: Bullforever's suit against CSC (Equifax)

Copied below is my original filing, names and personal information omitted: If I have to move everything to a higher court, I will post that filing as well:

Comes now (Plaintiff) Derek XXXXXXX, Pro Se, to declare to this Court, by my own free will and personal knowledge, the following statements to be true and correct to my own best belief and knowledge and not misleading to the best of my own ability:

1. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff is and was a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, residing at XXXXXXXX and having recently moved to a new address in Fort Bend County, Texas at XXXXXXXXX. Plaintiff’s Social Security number is XXXXXXXXX. Plaintiff’s Home Telephone number is XXXXXXXXXXX.
2. Upon information and belief, CSC Credit Services, is a Texas corporation organized and existing in accordance with the Laws of the State of Texas, with it’s office and principle place of business located at 652 N Sam Houston Pkwy E, Suite 400, Houston, Harris County, TX 77060, per the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and confirmed by the Texas State Business Tax Office..
3. The Small Claims Court of Fort Bend County, Precinct 3, has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681p) which states that Plaintiff may bring actions to enforce liability under said Laws in any Court of competent jurisdiction, and pursuant to Texas Business and Commerce Code (Chapter 20.8.a) which references the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and pursuant to the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 15.002 which specifies proper venue. In accordance with the above Laws and because all of Plaintiff’s causes of action arose in the County of Fort Bend, Texas, to with, Defendant engaged in prohibited credit reporting activities against Plaintiff while Plaintiff resided in the above named County, the Small Claims Court of Fort Bend County, Precinct 3, has jurisdiction in this matter.
4. Plaintiff did, on 4/18/2002, transmit to Defendant via facsimile, a consumer dispute of 2 items contained in Plaintiff’s credit report as maintained by Defendant. (Exhibit A). Item 1 is for Plaintiff’s credit card account number ending in 9191, and item 2 is for Plaintiff’s credit card account number ending in 4030. Defendant did receive Plaintiff’s faxed dispute documents as evidenced by (Exhibit A) and specifically, the Fax receipt confirmation which is included as a part of (Exhibit A). Additionally, (Exhibit B) does verify that Defendant did receive Plaintiff’s faxed dispute by virtue of Defendants actions in response thereto wherein they performed an investigation into the accounts in question.
5. Plaintiff did, on 4/18/2002, include in his dispute listed in Paragraph 5 above, copies of billing statements pertaining to the 2 items. (Exhibit A) These billing statements come directly from the Creditor, Capital One, and clearly contradicted the information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report as maintained by Defendant (Exhibit D) (reference Exhibits E and G and Paragraph 9 below for relevance of Exhibit D).
6. Defendant did, on 5/16/2002, respond to Plaintiff and make claim that they completed their investigation into Plaintiff’s dispute (Exhibit B) and mailed notice of such claim on 5/21/2002 (Exhibit C)
7. On 5/16/2002, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff was to refuse to update and/or correct the two inaccurate items disputed by Plaintiff (Exhibit B). As such:
a. With regard to item 1 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to completely investigate Plaintiff’s consumer dispute of inaccurate information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report file maintained at and by Defendant in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 611, (a), (1), (A) and by failing to correct inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit file in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 611, (a), (5), (A).
b. With regard to item 2 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to completely investigate Plaintiff’s consumer dispute of inaccurate information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report file maintained at and by Defendant in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 611, (a), (1), (A) and by failing to correct inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit file in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 611, (a), (5), (A).
c. With regard to item 1 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to completely investigate Plaintiff’s consumer dispute of inaccurate information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report file and by failing to correct inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit file maintained at and by Defendant in violation of Texas Business and Commerce Code 20.06.
d. With regard to item 2 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to completely investigate Plaintiff’s consumer dispute of inaccurate information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report file and by failing to correct inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit file maintained at and by Defendant in violation of Texas Business and Commerce Code 20.06.
e. With regard to Item 1 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to consider evidence provided to Defendant by Plaintiff (Exhibit A) in violation of 15 U.S.C 1681, sec 611, (a), (4).
f. With regard to Item 2 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to consider evidence provided to Defendant by Plaintiff (Exhibit A) in violation of 15 U.S.C 1681, sec 611, (a), (4).
8. Defendant is an affiliate office of Equifax (Exhibit E) (Exhibit G) and is assigned as the entity which manages Plaintiff’s Consumer Credit Report Files for Equifax (Exhibit E) (Exhibit G). As such, Defendant maintains the exact and very same information as Equifax regarding Plaintiff and Defendant failed to fully disclose to Plaintiff, all information contained in Plaintiff’s consumer credit file maintained by Defendant on behalf of Equifax in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 609, (a), (1) as follows:
a. On or about 5/16/2002, Defendant did send Plaintiff a copy of his consumer credit report as maintained by Defendant (Exhibit B).
b. (Exhibit F) is a copy of Plaintiff’s Credit report directly from Equifax dated 5/29/2002.
c. (Exhibit B) and (Exhibit F) contain mostly the same information with a few exceptions as listed below whereby it is evident that Defendant did fail to fully disclose all information maintained by Defendant about Plaintiff in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 609, (a), (1):
I. (Exhibit B), Sallie Mae FFELP shows a balance of 25K and a high credit of 23K. (Exhibit F) shows the same account with a balance of 25,220 and a high credit of 23,345. Defendant did round off information, thereby failing to disclose all information to Plaintiff as required. Total of 2 violations of Plaintiff’s rights, one for each figure.
II. (Exhibit B), Sallie Mae FFELP shows a balance of 36K and a high credit of 34K. (Exhibit F) shows the same account with a balance of 36,323 and a high credit of 33,614. Defendant did round off information, thereby failing to disclose all information to Plaintiff as required. Total of 2 violations of Plaintiff’s rights, one for each figure.
III. (Exhibit B), Ford Motor Credit shows a balance of 15K and a high credit of 32K. (Exhibit F) shows the same account with a different name of FMC and shows a balance of 15,041 and a high credit of 31,614. Defendant did fail to disclose different name of FMC and did round off information, thereby failing to disclose all information to Plaintiff as required. Total of 3 violations of Plaintiff’s rights: one for each figure and one for different name.
IV. It is noted and conceded by Plaintiff that in a vice versa manner, (Exhibit F) does also fail to fully disclose information otherwise contained in (Exhibit B) and Plaintiff does contend that both the Defendant and Equifax have conspired to defraud Plaintiff and violate Plaintiff’s rights by producing reports about Plaintiff which each and separately fail to fully disclose all information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report file as maintained and managed by Defendant on behalf of Equifax when in fact the information maintained by both Defendant and Equifax about Plaintiff is exactly the same. As such, Plaintiff reserves the right to file additional claims against Equifax separately.
9. With Regard to Item 9 above, Defendant did also violate Plaintiff’s rights under Texas Business and Commerce Code 20.03 for a total of 7 violations of Plaintiff’s rights.
10. On or about 6/3/2002, and with regard to Item 1 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights under Texas Finance Code 391.002, (b) by knowingly providing inaccurate information about Plaintiff to Capital One (Exhibit G) as evidenced by Defendant’s failure to correct inaccurate information maintained by Defendant about Plaintiff.
11. On or about 6/3/2002, and with regard to Item 2 in paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights under Texas Finance Code 391.002, (b) by knowingly providing inaccurate information about Plaintiff to Capital One (Exhibit G) as evidenced by Defendant’s failure to correct inaccurate information maintained by Defendant about Plaintiff.
12. On or about 6/3/2002, and with regard to Item 1 in Paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to follow procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information contained in Plaintiff’s consumer report when it prepared a report about Plaintiff for Capital One following Plaintiff’s application for a credit card with Capital One. Defendant’s actions were in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 607, (b).
13. On or about 6/3/2002, and with regard to Item 2 in Paragraph 4, Defendant did violate Plaintiff’s rights by failing to follow procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information contained in Plaintiff’s consumer report when it prepared a report about Plaintiff for Capital One following Plaintiff’s application for a credit card with Capital One. Defendant’s actions were in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681, sec 607, (b).




LISTING OF EXHIBITS OFFERED BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF THIS WRITTEN DEPOSITION:

(Exhibit A) Facsimile transmission report and billing statement attachments

(Exhibit B) copy of credit report dated 5/16/2002 showing results of Defendant’s investigation into Plaintiff’s disputes

(Exhibit C) postmarked envelope

(Exhibit D) copy of credit report dated 2/28/2002, showing that the information being maintained and reported by Defendant was inaccurate

(Exhibit E) Documents from Equifax and Defendant showing that Defendant is an Affiliate Office of Equifax

(Exhibit F) is a copy of Plaintiff’s Credit report directly from Equifax dated 5/29/2002

(Exhibit G) Credit denial letter from Capital one naming Equifax/Defendant as the source of information used to deny Plaintiff an extension of credit. Also included is printouts from the Capital One on-line application showing what I applied for and what I was denied, what I was offered instead, and what I declined in order to mitigate my damages

(Exhibit H) is a copy of a JENNIFER CUSHMAN, Appellant v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 115 F.3d 220, which addresses the issue of a Credit Reporting Agency’s obligations to investigate consumer disputes.


DAMAGES:

1. Defendant did negligently violate Plaintiff’s rights under Texas Business and Commerce Code 20.06 in 2 separate instances as evidenced above. Texas Business and Commerce Code 20 specifies actual damages or $500.00 per occurrence whichever is greater. Since Plaintiff suffered less than $500.00 in actual damages per (Exhibit G), Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500.00 per instance for a total of $1000.00.
2. Defendant did negligently violate Plaintiff’s rights under Texas Business and Commerce Code 20.03 in 7 separate instances as evidenced above. Texas Business and Commerce Code 20 specifies actual damages or $500.00 per occurrence whichever is greater. Since Plaintiff suffered less than $500.00 in actual damages per (Exhibit G), Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500.00 per instance for a total of $3,500.00
3. Plaintiff spent in excess of 40 hours labor and effort in this entire matter, including original consumer dispute, demand letter, trips to the post office, trips to the court, research and document preparation, evidence gathering, organizing, phone conversations with defendant, drafting settlement offers, faxing, drafting depositions and motions, etc. and as such, Plaintiff does seek $500.00 in actual damages for time invested in this entire matter.
4. Plaintiff also seeks Court and case costs including $50.00 constable service fee, $12.00 court filing fee, $4.42 certified return receipt mailing fee for sending Defendant copy of Motion in response to Defendants answer to original complaint, $3.94 certified return receipt mailing fee for sending Defendant copy of demand letter for a total in court and case costs of $70.36.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration