1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GLENN L. UDELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. )

)

TRANS UNION, LLC, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, GLENN L. UDELL, by and through his attorneys, LARRY 

P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD., and for his complaint against TRANS UNION, LLC, 

Plaintiff states as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (hereinafter “FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681, et. seq.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. Jurisdiction arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. §1681, et. seq., 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1337.

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

III. PARTIES

4. GLENN L. UDELL, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who was at all 

relevant times residing in the City of Highland Park, County of Lake, State of Illinois.

5. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 

U.S.C. §1692(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c).

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

6. TRANS UNION, LLC, (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a business entity that 

regularly conducts business in the State of Illinois. Defendant is registered as a limited liability 

company in the State of Illinois..

7. At all relevant times Defendant was a “person” as that term is defined by 15 

U.S.C. §1681a(b).

8. At all relevant times Defendant was a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is 

defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).

IV. ALLEGATIONS

9. At all relevant times, credit reports as alleged in this pleading are “consumer 

reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(d).

10. Defendant has been reporting to third parties derogatory and inaccurate statements 

and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit history 

11. The inaccurate information of which Plaintiff complains is a trade-line relative to 

a judgment that was allegedly entered against Plaintiff in the County of Cook, State of Illinois.

12. Specifically, the aforementioned trade-line denotes that a judgment was entered 

against Plaintiff in a matter that was pending in the County of Cook, State of Illinois with case

number 10 M1 113585 (hereinafter “Cook County matter”).

13. Plaintiff was not a party in the Cook County matter.

14. No judgment was entered against Plaintiff in the Cook County matter. 

15. No judgment has ever been entered against Plaintiff.

16. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a partner with the law firm of Brown, Udell, 

Pomerantz & Delrahim, Ltd (hereinafter, “BUPD”).

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

17. BUPD was a registered agent for the defendant in the aforesaid Cook County 

matter and, as registered agent, accepted service for the defendant in that matter.

18. On June 11, 2011, a judgment was entered against the defendant in the Cook 

County matter. 

19. On June 11, 2011, a judgment was neither entered against Plaintiff, as an 

individual, nor BUPD in the Cook County matter.

20. Plaintiff is neither legally responsible nor obligated to pay for the aforesaid 

judgment.

21. Despite the foregoing, Defendant has disseminated credit reports and/or 

information that a judgment was entered against Plaintiff relative to the Cook County matter in 

the amount of $3,089 (hereinafter, “the inaccurate information”).

22. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit 

repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and Plaintiff’s credit 

worthiness.

23. The credit reports have been and continue to be disseminated to various persons 

and credit grantors, both known and unknown.

24. Defendant is aware that the credit reports regarding Plaintiff will be disseminated 

to various other persons or parties who will be reviewing this information for the purpose of 

extending credit, insurance or employment.

25. In 2011, prior to May 22, 2011, Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate information with 

Defendant to its representatives and by following Defendant’s established procedure for 

disputing consumer credit information. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

26. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Plaintiff disputing the 

inaccurate information with Defendant, Defendant notified the furnisher of the inaccurate 

information of Plaintiff’s dispute and the nature of the dispute. 

27. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Plaintiff disputing the 

inaccurate information with Defendant, the furnisher of the inaccurate information received 

notification from Defendant of Plaintiff’s dispute and the nature of the dispute.

28. Upon information and belief, Defendant received the results of the furnisher’s 

investigation as to Plaintiff’s dispute.

29. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s efforts, on or about May 22, 2011, Defendant 

continued to publish and disseminate such inaccurate information to other third parties, persons, 

entities and credit grantors. 

30. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s efforts, on or about May 22, 2011, Defendant further

amended the inaccurate information relative to Plaintiff by publishing and disseminating that the 

putative judgment entered against Plaintiff relative to the Cook County matter was now in the 

amount of $13,000, as opposed to in the amount of $3,089, i.e., the amount that was previously 

published and disseminated by Defendant to third-parties.

31. The aforesaid inaccurate information continued to negatively reflect upon 

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s credit repayment history, Plaintiff’s financial responsibility as a debtor and 

Plaintiff’s credit worthiness.

32. Again, the credit reports relative to Plaintiff containing the aforesaid inaccurate 

information have been and continue to be disseminated to various persons and credit grantors, 

both known and unknown.

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

33. Again, Defendant was aware that the credit reports regarding Plaintiff would be 

disseminated to various other persons or parties who would be reviewing this information for the 

purpose of extending credit, insurance or employment.

34. Again, on or about June 1, 2011, Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate information 

with Defendant via facsimile to its representatives and by following Defendant’s established 

procedure for disputing consumer credit information. 

35. Furthermore, Plaintiff enclosed with his written dispute to Defendant documents 

and other information that either proved that the disputed information contained within his credit 

report was inaccurate or, at the very least, provided evidence that supported Plaintiff’s 

contentions that the disputed information was inaccurate.

36. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Plaintiff disputing the 

inaccurate information with Defendant, Defendant notified the furnisher of the inaccurate 

information of Plaintiff’s dispute and the nature of the dispute. 

37. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Plaintiff disputing the 

inaccurate information with Defendant, the furnisher of the inaccurate information received 

notification from Defendant of Plaintiff’s dispute and the nature of the dispute.

38. Upon information and belief, Defendant received the results of the furnisher’s 

investigation as to Plaintiff’s dispute.

39. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant deleted the inaccurate information relative 

to the putative judgment that was entered against Plaintiff.

40. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant ceased publishing and disseminating such 

inaccurate information to other third parties, persons, entities and credit grantors. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

41. Despite Plaintiff’s efforts to date, Defendant has nonetheless deliberately, 

willfully, intentionally, recklessly and negligently repeatedly failed to perform reasonable 

reinvestigations of the above disputes as required by the FCRA, has failed to remove the 

inaccurate information, has failed to note the disputed status of the inaccurate information and 

has continued to report the derogatory inaccurate information about Plaintiff.

42. Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, in the following ways:

a. Denial of attempts to obtain a credit card in his name;

b. Out of pocket expenses associated with disputing the information only to find 

the information to remain on the credit report;

c. Emotional distress and mental anguish associated with having incorrect 

derogatory personal information transmitted about Plaintiff to other people 

both known and unknown;

d. Denial of credit, loans, financing and/or other damages, not yet known by 

Plaintiff; and,

e. Decreased credit score which may result in inability to obtain credit on future 

attempts.

43. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was 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 Defendant.

44. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant, as well as that of its

agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly 

negligent disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of Plaintiff herein.

45. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15 U.S.C. §1681o, Defendant is liable to

Plaintiff for engaging in the following conduct:

a. Willfully and negligently failing to obtain a certification from the person who 

furnished this trade line prior to re-inserting the inaccurate information in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(5)(B)(i); 

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

b. Willfully and negligently failed to notify the Plaintiff that they re-inserted the 

aforementioned derogatory information within five (5) days after the 

reinsertion in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(5)(B)(ii); and,

c. Willfully and negligently failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed 

to prevent the reappearance in a consumer’s file, and in consumer reports on 

the consumer, of information that is previously deleted in violation of 15 

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(5)(C); 

d. Willfully and negligently failing to employ and follow reasonable procedures 

to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report, information 

and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).

46. The conduct of Defendant was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a 

substantial factor, in bringing about the injuries, damages and harm to Plaintiff that are outlined 

more fully above and, as a result, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, 

actual and punitive damages, along with the attorneys’ fees and the costs of litigation, as well as 

such further relief, as may be permitted by law.

V. JURY DEMAND

47. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GLENN L. UDELL, by and through his attorneys, respectfully 

prays for judgment as follows:

a. All actual compensatory damages suffered;

b. Statutory damages of $1,000.00;

c. Punitive damages;

d. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

e. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court.

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

Respectfully submitted,

GLENN L. UDELL

By: s/ David M. Marco

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: January 20, 2012

David M. Marco (Atty. No.: 6273315)

LARRY P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2940

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 546-6539

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-Mail: dmarco@smithlaw.us

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/20/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8