1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Civil Action No. 22cv80807

COMPLAINT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, GINA B. 

DERISO, the Plaintiff herein and hereby files this Complaint against 

Defendant, HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, INC., d/b/a KIA 

MOTORS FINANCE, and alleges as follows:

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.

GINA B. DERISO

Plaintiff,

– against–

HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, 

INC., d/b/a KIA MOTORS 

FINANCE

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 1 of 36
2

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).

PARTIES

4. GINA B. DERISO (hereinafter, “Ms. Deriso”) is an 

individual who was at all relevant times residing in the County of 

Palm Beach, State of Florida.

5. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that 

term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c)

6. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, INC., d/b/a KIA MOTORS 

FINANCE (hereinafter, “Defendant” and/or “KIA FINANCE”) is a

business entity that provides automobile financing to consumers.

Defendant’s principal place of business is located in the State of 

California Defendant is incorporated in the State of California.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant was a “person” as that 

term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(b).

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 2 of 36
3

8. 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).

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

9. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et. seq., was 

originally enacted in 1970 for the purpose of regulating the 

collection, dissemination, and use of consumer credit information. 

10. Congress found that “[i]nnacurate 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.” 15 

U.S.C. §1681(a)(1). 

11. “The aim of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is to see that the 

credit reporting system serves the consumer as well as the industry. 

The consumer has a right to information which is accurate; he has 

a right to correct inaccurate or misleading information; he has a 

right to know when inaccurate information is entered into his file; 

he has a right to see that the information is kept confidential and is 

used for the purpose for which it is collected; and he has a right to 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 3 of 36
4

be free from unwarranted invasions of his personal privacy.” The 

Fair Credit Reporting Act seeks to secure these rights.” Hearings on 

S. 823 Before the Subcomm. on Financial Institutions of the S. 

Comm. on Banking and Currency, 91st Cong. 2 (1969). 

12. A “furnisher of information” provides information about 

consumers’ credit history to credit reporting agencies. 15 U.S.C. 

§1681s-2. 

13. “Furnishers of information” under the FCRA, pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b) to conduct a reasonable investigation into 

each of the written disputes that it receives from the credit 

reporting agencies. See also Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,

827 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016). 

14. Congress also found that “[c]onsumer reporting agencies 

have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer 

credit and other information on consumers” and that “[t]here is a 

need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their 

grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for 

the consumer's right to privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3),(4). 

15. The FCRA requires credit reporting agencies to “follow

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of” 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 4 of 36
5

consumer reports. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). If a consumer disputes 

information contained in their credit report, the FCRA requires a 

credit reporting agency to “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to 

determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and 

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

item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end 

of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency 

receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.”15 

U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 

16. In performing the reinvestigation, the FCRA requires a 

credit reporting agency to “review and consider all relevant 

information submitted by the consumer in the period described in 

paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.”15 

U.S.C.S. § 1681i(a)(4). 

17. If the disputed information is inaccurate or incomplete or 

cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency “shall...(i) 

promptly delete that item of information from the file of the 

consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based 

on the results of the reinvestigation; and (ii) promptly notify the 

furnisher of that information that the information has been 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 5 of 36
6

modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 

1681(a)(5)(A)(i),(ii). 

18. The FCRA provides a private right of action against any 

person that violates the provisions of the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681o, 

1691n. 

19. If the violation is negligent, the FCRA allows the consumer 

to recover actual damages (§ 1681o(a)); however, if the violation is 

willful, the consumer may recover any actual damages or statutory 

damages from not less than $100.00 and not more than $1,000. § 

1681n(a). 

20. Under the FCRA, the term “consumer report” generally 

refers to: 

any written, oral, or other communication of any information 

by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s 

credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, 

general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living 

which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or 

in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing 

the consumer’s eligibility for: 

i. credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, 

family, or household purposes; 

ii. employment purposes; or 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 6 of 36
7

iii. any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of 

this title. 

15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1). 

21. The terms “consumer report”, “credit report”, and

“consumer credit report” are used synonymously herein.

ALLEGATIONS

Credit Risk Scores aka ‘Credit Scores’ 

22. The Fair Isaac Corporation credit risk scoring system, 

commonly referred to as “FICO”, is the leading credit scoring system 

and utilizes data reported by credit reporting agencies. See 

https://www.myfico.com/credit-education/credit-scores (last 

visited June 2, 2022). 

23. The Fair Isaac Corporation uses the data in consumer 

reports to calculate consumers’ credit scores (also known as credit 

risk scores). Id.

24. The term “credit score” is a numerical value or a 

categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system 

used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the 

likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default. Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, Supervision and Examination Manual, 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 7 of 36
8

Version 2 (October 2012), p. 99, archived at 

https://perma.cc/JF32-RFAA 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_supervision-andexamination- manual-v2.pdf (last accessed on June 2, 2022). 

25. The cost of credit (e.g., interest rates, fees, etc.), the 

availability of credit, ratings for insurance products, and even 

unsolicited credit offers, such as the opportunity to refinance a 

mortgage at a lower interest rate, extended financing periods and 

lower rate auto loans, and even zero-percent financing credit offers 

for in-store credit lines, are all, by and large, driven by a 

consumer’s credit score. 

26. FICO scores are calculated from five main categories of 

credit data in a consumer’s credit report. Those categories, and 

their weighted values, are as follows: payment history accounts for 

35% of a consumer’s FICO score; debt/amounts owed accounts for 

30% of a consumer’s FICO score; age/length of credit history 

accounts for 15% of a consumer’s FICO score; new credit/recent 

inquiries accounts for 10% of a consumer’s FICO score; and mix of 

accounts/types of credit accounts for 10% of a consumer’s FICO 

score. See https://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-inCase 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 8 of 36
9

your-credit-score (last accessed June 2, 2022). 

27. The cost of credit (e.g., interest rates, fees, etc.), the 

availability of credit, ratings for insurance products, and even 

unsolicited credit offers, such as the opportunity to refinance a 

mortgage at a lower interest rate, extended financing periods and 

lower rate auto loans, and even zero-percent financing credit offers 

for in-store credit lines, are all, by and large, driven by a 

consumer’s credit score.

28. Inaccurate or incorrect credit reporting very often results in 

a lower FICO and other credit scoring model scores, and thus 

higher costs of credit, diminished opportunity, and less purchasing 

power for consumers.

29. There is no established rule or threshold for classifying the 

significance of a credit score change as minor or major because the 

impact of a change in score is dependent on the current score. For 

example, a twenty-five-point change in a credit score that keeps the 

consumer in a particular credit risk category may not have a large 

impact on the person’s likelihood of receiving credit. However, a 

one-point change in credit score that moves the consumer from one 

risk tier to the next may have a large impact on the consumer’s 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 9 of 36
10

access to credit or the products and rates the consumer is able to 

secure.

30. The Fair Isaac Corporation states that inaccurate or 

incorrect information on a consumer’s credit report can hurt their 

score. See https://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/questions/fix-errors-on-credit-report archived at 

https://perma.cc/9TQN-S5WP (last visited June 2, 2022).

The CDIA Metro 2 Credit Reporting Standards

31. The reporting of consumer credit information, by CRAs and 

data furnishers, is the foundation of credit risk scoring and impacts 

the financial lives of consumers by giving them access to loans and 

bank products that they need. See https://www.cdiaonline.org/forconsumers/credit-reporting-overview/

(last visited June 2, 2022).

32. Moreover, the significance of credit reporting and the value 

attached to one’s “credit in this day and age is one of his most 

valuable assets and without it, a substantial portion of the 

American people would be without their homes, washing machines, 

refrigerators, automobiles, television sets, and other mechanical 

paraphernalia that are now regarded as necessities of life." Am. Fire 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 10 of 36
11

& Cas. Co. v. Davis, 146 So. 2d 615, 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962).”

33. The Consumer Data Industry Association (“CDIA”) is an 

international trade association, representing over 140 members 

involved in credit reporting, mortgage reporting, check verification, 

tenant and employment screening, collection services, and fraud 

verification services, and the CDIA is active in both federal and 

state legislative affairs, public relations, education, and the 

promulgation of industry standards.

34. Because consumer credit reporting information is such 

sensitive data that has far reaching implications for most, if not all, 

consumers, the CDIA works together with CRAs to develop, 

maintain and enhance industry-standard reporting formats and 

guidelines.

35. On May 20, 2015, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and 

thirty (30) other state attorneys general announced a national 

settlement (“The Settlement”) with the CRAs. Attorney General 

DeWine Announces Major National Settlement with Credit 

Reporting Agencies, Ohio Att’y Gen. (May 20, 2015), 

https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Media/News-Releases/May2015/Attorney-General-DeWine-Announces-Major-National-S , last 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 11 of 36
12

visited June 2, 2022.

36. The Settlement implemented numerous reporting 

standards, including the Metro 2, data reporting format. See 

Assurance of Voluntary Compliance/Assurance of Voluntary 

Discontinuance, In the Matter of Equifax Info. Servs. L.L.C., Experian 

Info. Sols., Inc., and TransUnion L.L.C., § IV (E)(2)(May 20, 2015).

37. To further assist CRAs and data furnishers with performing 

their due diligence and reporting accurate, complete, and timely 

data, in satisfaction of the FCRA’s legal requirements, the CDIA 

offers extensive training, education, and support to CRAs and data

furnishers.

38. The CDIA’s extensive training and support offerings include 

FCRA certification programs for both CRAs and data furnishers, to 

assist each in maintaining compliance with FCRA regulations.

39. If the standardized methods proscribed by the CDIA are not 

followed, FCRA certification can be revoked for failure to adhere to 

such standards.

40. In cooperation with the major CRAs, CDIA publishes the 

Metro 2 (“Metro 2”) reporting standards to assist furnishers with 

their compliance requirements under the FCRA. CDIA’s reporting 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 12 of 36
13

products are used in more than nine billion transactions each year. 

See, https://www.cdiaonline.org/resources/furnishers-of-dataoverview/metro2-information/ (last accessed June 2, 2022).

41. The Metro 2 Format Task Force is comprised of 

representatives from Equifax, Experian, Innovis, and TransUnion, 

and is supported by the CDIA. Metro 2 Format Task Force’s mission 

is to provide a standardized method for the reporting of accurate, 

complete, and timely data, and has developed the Metro 2 

standards. See https://www.cdiaonline.org/metro-2/ (last visited

June 2, 2022).

42. To ensure compliance with the FCRA, and in furtherance of 

its mission, the Metro 2 Format Task Force has developed an 

industry standard (the “Metro2 standard”) for reporting consumer 

accounts that is “designed to standardize a wide range of credit 

information while complying with federal laws and regulations for 

credit reporting.” Id.

43. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2) requires furnishers of information 

to regularly correct and update the information they previously 

provided to consumer reporting agencies, to make sure the

information is complete and accurate. Similarly, upon receiving 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 13 of 36
14

notice from a consumer reporting agency of a consumer’s dispute, 

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1) requires furnishers of information to 

conduct reasonable investigations of a consumer’s dispute of the 

completeness or accuracy of any information provided by the 

furnisher of information to a consumer reporting agency.

44. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting agencies 

to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible 

accuracy of information concerning the individual about whom a 

report relates. Similarly, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1) requires consumer 

reporting agencies to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of a 

consumer’s dispute of the completeness or accuracy of any item of 

information contained in the consumer’s file.

45. The uniform adoption and implementation of the Metro 2 

standards is the primary vehicle by which CRAs and furnishers 

ensure compliance with their respective duties to maintain complete 

and accurate information under the FCRA.

46. The Metro 2 standards provide uniformity in the reporting

and interpretation of credit data, including credit risk scoring.

47. The Metro 2 standards are documented in the Credit 

Reporting Resource Guide (“CRRG”), an industry-standard 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 14 of 36
15

publication produced and distributed by the CDIA.

48. As an integral aspect of its duties under the FCRA, KIA 

FINANCE is required to have in place adequate and reasonable 

policies and procedures for handling and investigation of disputed 

information.

49. At all times relevant hereto, KIA FINANCE adopted and 

implemented the Metro 2 format as a means of fulfilling its duties 

under the FCRA.

50. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, KIA FINANCE, 

warranted, and or represented to all CRAs to which it reported that 

it had adopted and implemented the Metro 2 format for its reporting 

of consumer data, and would otherwise comply with Metro 2 and 

CDIA guidelines in their reporting of consumer information.

National CRAs and Furnishers Communicate Consumer 

Disputes and Responses via the E- Oscar Reporting Platform

51. The FCRA requires CRAs to implement an automated 

reinvestigation system through which furnishers of information to 

the CRA may report the results of a reinvestigation that finds 

incomplete or inaccurate information in a consumer’s file. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681i(a)(5)(D).

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 15 of 36
16

52. To comply with the automated dispute reinvestigation 

requirements of the FCRA, Trans Union, Equifax, and Experian (the 

three major “National CRAs”), along with Innovis Data Solutions, 

Inc., developed and implemented a browser- based software system 

that allows the CRAs to electronically notify furnishers quickly and 

easily of disputed credit reporting information, and for furnishers to

quickly and easily respond to such disputes following the 

furnisher’s investigation of the disputed information.

53. The system is commonly referred to as e-OSCAR (Online 

Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting) and was designed to 

be Metro 2 compliant. See http://www.e-oscar.org/

(last accessed June 2, 2022).

54. The e-OSCAR system primarily supports Automated Credit

Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) and Automated Universal Data Form 

(“AUD”) processing, as well as other consumer- dispute-related 

processes. Id.

55. The National CRAs, provide notice of a consumer’s dispute 

to data furnishers in the ACDV format, and forward the ACDV to 

the furnisher through e- OSCAR.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 16 of 36
17

56. If a furnisher’s investigation of a consumer’s dispute 

determines that the information in dispute is incomplete or 

inaccurate, the FCRA requires the furnisher to correct the 

information not only with the CRA that sent the ACDV, but with all 

other CRAs to whom the furnisher reported that information. 15 

U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D).

57. The e-OSCAR system facilitates the furnisher’s compliance 

with 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D) by sending a “Carbon Copy” of an 

ACDV response “to each CRA with whom the [furnisher] has a 

reporting relationship” in addition to the response to the initiating 

CRA. See https://www.e-oscar.org/getting-started/about-us (last 

accessed June 2, 2022).

58. Additionally, a furnisher can manually correct a tradeline 

with a CRA other than the one that initiated a dispute by sending 

an AUD within e-OSCAR.

59. Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax each require data 

furnishers that report to them respectively to register with and use 

e-OSCAR, and states that e-OSCAR is “in compliance with FCRA 

and Metro 2 standards.” See, https://www.transunion.com/datareporting/support-teams (last accessed June 2, 2022).

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 17 of 36
18

GINA B. DERISO LEASES A 

DEFECTIVE and DANGEROUS KIA SORENTO

60. On August 26, 2015, Ms. DeRiso leased a 2016 Kia 

Sorento from Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, 

KIA Motors Corporation, and/or KIA Motors America, Inc. the 

leased was financed by Defendant, KIA FINANCE.

61. On or around June 30, 2017, Ms. DeRiso was driving 

northbound on 1-95 going approximately 75 miles per hour when 

this horrific shrieking metal sound came from her car.

62. The car suddenly had no power and Ms. DeRiso was 

forced to try to maneuver her way through high-speed cars off I-95 

to safety on the side of the road. 

63. The car had lost power steering and it was a terrifying event 

for Ms. DeRiso. It was miracle Ms. DeRiso was not hit.

64. Ms. DeRiso waited on the side of the road for a tow truck 

to take her to the dealership.

65. When Ms. DeRiso advised the tow truck driver as to what 

happened, in response he said this was his 4th or 5th Kia he towed 

in this week with the same problem.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 18 of 36
19

66. Coincidentally, Ms. Desiro received a Notice of Proposed 

Class Settlement due to the fact that Hyundai Motor Company, 

Hyundai Motor America, KIA Motors Corporation, and KIA Motors 

America, Inc. were selling dangerous vehicles where there was a 

defect that caused engine seizure, stalling, engine failure and 

engine fire, which if experienced “can be dangerous.” A copy of the 

Notice of Proposed Class Settlement is attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A.”

67. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, KIA

Motors Corporation, and/or KIA Motors America, Inc. leased a 

dangerous vehicle to Ms. Deriso through its finance company, 

Defendant, KIA.

68. Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, KIA 

Motors Corporation, and/or KIA Motors America, Inc., should 

not be selling vehicles to individuals such as the Plaintiff, Ms. 

DeRiso in which the engine: seizes, stalls, fails, and/or catches on 

fire.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 19 of 36
20

69. Mr. DeRiso excluded herself from this Class action by 

letter dated December 17, 2020. A redacted copy of Ms. Deriso’s 

letter excluding her from the Class Action is attached hereto as 

Exhibit “B.”

70. It is important to note, approximately a month prior to 

this event Ms. DeRiso had taken her car in for an oil change.

71. The technician said, the oil they drained out didn’t look 

right and Ms. DeRiso should take her car in for service to be 

inspected.

72. It was time for the annual service (Ms. DeRiso had the 

car only ONE YEAR).

73. Ms. DeRiso took the Kia Sorento to the Napleton KIA 

dealership on 3626 Northlake Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33403 

[hereinafter “KIA Dealership”], who performed the annual 

inspection.

74. Ms DeRiso conveyed the concerns the technician who 

changed the oil mentioned, in response the mechanic at the KIA 

Dealership said the car had nothing wrong with it and looked great, 

and sent Ms. DeRiso on her way.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 20 of 36
21

75. Shortly thereafter (approximately 30 days) the car seized 

on I-95 as mentioned above. 

76. This was a terrifying event, and Ms. DeRiso is still 

haunted today by the shrieking sound that her Sorento made.

77. The event has traumatized Ms. DeRiso and she will never 

own a KIA automobile again.

78. Ms. DeRiso is so stressed out that any car she is driving

will have an oil and engine problem that she is constantly checking 

the oil.

79. It is important to mention that because of this 

traumatizing event, Ms. DeRiso spends more money getting the oil 

changed sooner than required due to the amount of anxiety the 

event caused her.

80. Ms. DeRiso is always stressed that the engine will fail 

and that she will be at risk of being harmed and possibly killed on 

the busy I-95 highway.

81. Any time Ms. DeRiso’s car makes a sound, a wave of 

anxiety moves over her and she is completely freaked out that this 

is going to happen to her again!

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 21 of 36
22

82. When the KIA Dealership contacted Ms. DeRiso the 

manager asked for her oil change receipts. She provided them, and 

the representative from the KIA Dealership said it wouldn’t be a 

problem and the car would be repaired.

83. Ms DeRiso later called the KIA Dealership to find out when 

her car would be returned to her.

84. Ms. DeRiso was told the manager had been fired and she

was put with another representative to be handled.

85. Over time the new person at the KIA Dealership, Ms. DeRiso 

was communicating with was also let go. It happened again after 

that!

86. The KIA Dealership cleaned house and no one who was 

left employed at the KIA Dealership that was aware of Ms. DeRiso’s 

situation.

87. Kia told Ms. DeRiso that they would not make the repairs 

and said Ms. DeRiso was responsible for them.

88. The car was one year old, 2016.

89. The engine failure happened June 30, 2017.

90. The car also has a 10 year or 100k mile warranty.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 22 of 36
23

91. Not only was Ms. DeRiso’s life put at risk, none of the 

warranties were honored by Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai 

Motor America, KIA Motors Corporation, and/or KIA Motors 

America, Inc.

92. Next, the billing department with KIA FINANCE contacted 

Ms. DeRiso and advised her that she needed to make a payment for

her lease.

93. Ms. DeRiso advised she would be happy to pay it when 

she had a car to drive around again.

KIA FINANCE’S COLLECTION LETTER

94. On or about January 5, 2018, KIA FINANCE sent a debt 

collection letter stating that Ms. Deriso owed KIA FINANCE

$10,108.36. Around January 5, 2018, KIA FINANCE contacted Ms. 

Deriso by phone and advised her that she owed $10,108.36. In 

response advised KIA FINANCE that she wasn’t paying because 

their car was faulty, and because the vehicle was under warranty 

and they were responsible to fix it. A copy of the KIA FINANCE

letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

95. They did not fix it and they stopped calling.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 23 of 36
24

96. Subsequent to June 30, 2017 when Ms. DeRiso went to get 

the tag off her car at the lot for her new vehicle she discovered that 

her tag had been taken with the car.

97. KIA FINANCE stole Ms. DeRiso’s tag, leaving her with 

another bill to pay for a new tag. 

98. Not only has Ms. DeRiso been emotionally impacted by 

the events that took place on or around June 30, 2017, but to make 

matters worse – Ms. DeRiso discovered that in January of 2020, KIA 

FINANCE was furnishing derogatory inaccurate information to the 

credit reporting agencies regarding the subject debt.

99. In response, to the Defendant’s January 5, 2018 debt 

collection letter on December 17, 2020, the Plaintiff sent a 

dispute to the Defendant advising the Defendant of the events that 

took place and also informing the Defendant that they are seeking 

to collect a debt that is not legitimate” and that Defendant was 

reporting to inaccurate information to Plaintiff’s credit reports. A 

copy of this redacted letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”

100. The Defendant did not respond Ms. DeRiso’s December 17, 

2020 dispute letter.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 24 of 36
25

101. As noted above, though the debt of Defendant is not 

legitimate, Ms. DeRiso discovered that the Defendant has been 

providing derogatory and inaccurate statements and information 

relating to Ms. DeRiso’s credit history to various credit reporting 

agencies, as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f). More 

specifically, the Defendant has been reporting the subject debt as 

charged-off to Experian, Equifax and TransUnion. A copy of the 

Defendant’s reporting is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.”

102. Defendant is aware that the credit reporting agencies to

which they are providing this information are going to disseminate 

this information to various other persons or parties who will be 

reviewing this information for the purpose of extending credit, 

insurance or employment.

103. The inaccurate information of which Ms. DeRiso complains

is an account, or trade-line, that reflects Ms. DeRiso has a defaulted 

on a debt with Defendant. Specifically, Ms. DeRiso asserts that she 

is not liable to the Defendant as her car malfunctioned and could 

not be repaired. 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 25 of 36
26

104. Despite the foregoing, Defendant has been reporting the 

account as a charge off while the result being that Defendant was 

communicating to potential creditors that Ms. DeRiso does not have 

the propensity to pay her bills. (hereinafter “the inaccurate 

information”)

105. The inaccurate information negatively reflects upon Ms.

DeRiso, Ms. DeRiso’s credit repayment history, Ms. DeRiso credit 

worthiness.

106. Credit reports containing the inaccurate information have 

been and continue to be disseminated to various persons and credit 

grantors, both known and unknown.

107. The Defendant failed to respond to Ms. DeRiso’s December 

17, 2020 letter and the Defendant failed to correct the inaccurate 

reporting and therefore on April 1, 2022, Ms. DeRiso, disputed the 

inaccurate information with the three (3) major credit reporting 

agencies, Equifax Information Services, Inc (hereinafter, “Equifax”), 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc, (hereinafter, “Experian”) and 

Trans Union, LLC (hereinafter, “Trans Union) by written 

communication to their respective representatives and by following 

the aforementioned reporting agencies’ established procedures for 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 26 of 36
27

disputing consumer credit information. A redacted copy of this 

letter is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “D.”

108. Upon information and belief, within five (5) 

days of Ms. DeRiso disputing the inaccurate information with 

Equifax, Equifax notified Defendant that Ms. DeRiso disputed the 

inaccurate information and the nature of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute.

109. Defendant received notification from Equifax that Ms. 

DeRiso disputed the inaccurate information and the nature of Ms. 

DeRiso’s dispute.

110. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from 

Equifax, notice of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute by an Automated Consumer 

Dispute Verification Notice.

111. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from 

Equifax additional information and documentation that Equifax had 

received from Ms. DeRiso relative to and in support of Ms. DeRiso 

dispute.

112. Defendant then and there owed Ms. DeRiso a duty to assist 

the Equifax in a reinvestigation into the disputed information being 

reported about Ms. DeRiso by Defendant.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 27 of 36
28

113. Though Equifax provided the Defendant with all information 

and documentation the Defendant failed to properly investigate the 

matter, instead the Defendant verified the debt to Equifax and Ms. 

DeRiso.

114. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Ms.

Gomez disputing the inaccurate information with Experian, 

Experian notified Defendant that Ms. DeRiso disputed the 

inaccurate information and the nature of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute.

115. Defendant received notification from Experian that Ms.

DeRiso the inaccurate information and the nature of Ms. DeRiso ’s 

dispute.

116. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from 

Experian, notice of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute by an Automated 

Consumer Dispute Verification Notice.

117. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from

Experian additional information and documentation that Experian 

had received from Ms. DeRiso relative to and in support of Ms. 

DeRiso’s dispute.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 28 of 36
29

118. Defendant then and there owed Ms. DeRiso a duty to assist 

Experian in a reinvestigation into the disputed information being 

reported about Ms. DeRiso by Defendant.

119. Though Experian provided the Defendant with all 

information and documentation the Defendant failed to properly 

investigate the matter, instead the Defendant verified the debt to 

Experian and Ms. DeRiso.

120. Upon information and belief, within five (5) days of Ms. 

DeRiso disputing the inaccurate information with Trans Union, 

Trans Union notified Defendant that Ms. DeRiso disputed the 

inaccurate information and the nature of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute.

121. Defendant received notification from Trans Union that 

Ms. DeRiso disputed the inaccurate information and the nature of 

Ms. DeRiso’s dispute.

122. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from Trans 

Union, notice of Ms. DeRiso’s dispute by an Automated Consumer 

Dispute Verification Notice.

123. Upon information and belief, Defendant received from Trans 

Union additional information and documentation that Trans Union 

had received from Ms. DeRiso relative to and in support of Ms. 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 29 of 36
30

DeRiso’s dispute.

124. Defendant then and there owed Ms. DeRiso a duty to assist 

Trans Union in a re-investigation into the disputed information 

being reported about Ms. DeRiso by Defendant.

125. Though Trans Union provided the Defendant with all 

information and documentation the Defendant failed to properly 

investigate the matter, instead the Defendant verified the debt to 

Trans Union and Ms. DeRiso.

126. Notwithstanding Ms. DeRiso’s efforts and Defendant’s 

duties, Defendant continued to publish and disseminate such 

inaccurate information to various credit reporting agencies.

127. Despite Ms. DeRiso’s efforts to date, Defendant has 

nonetheless deliberately, willfully, intentionally, recklessly and 

negligently repeatedly failed to perform reasonable re-investigations 

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

and/or correct the inaccurate information, has failed to note the 

disputed status of the inaccurate information, and has continued to 

report the derogatory inaccurate information about Ms. DeRiso.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 30 of 36
31

128. Ms. DeRiso’s credit reports and file have been obtained from 

Defendant and have been reviewed many times by prospective and 

existing credit grantors and extenders of credit, and the inaccurate 

information has been a substantial factor in precluding Ms. DeRiso 

from receiving many different credit offers and opportunities, known 

and unknown, and from receiving the most favorable terms in 

financing and interest rates for credit offers that were ultimately 

made.

129. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Ms. DeRiso has suffered 

actual damages in the forms of lost credit opportunities, harm to 

credit reputation and credit score, and emotional distress.

130. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Ms. DeRiso’s credit

Scores have decreased. Additionally, as a result of Ms. DeRiso’s 

dispute of Defendant’s tradelines and then Defendant subsequently 

verifying the tradelines, Ms. DeRiso’s credit score dropped 23 

points. See Exhibit “F.”

Plaintiff’s Injuries-In-Fact under the FCRA

131. Defendants’ actions and omissions have resulted in Ms. 

DeRiso having a decreased credit score, which resulted in her 

paying increased interest on any approved credit applications 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 31 of 36
32

following her two written disputes. 

132. This negative effect on Plaintiff’s credit score subjected her 

to either being denied credit or receiving less favorable credit terms 

than she otherwise would when she applied for credit after 

submitting her written disputes. 

133. Further, courts have regularly held that allegations of lower 

credit scores, taken as true, are sufficient to allege a concrete 

injury-in-fact for the purposes of standing under Article III. Pedro v. 

Equifax, Inc., 868 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[H]er credit score 

dropped 100 points as a result of the challenged conduct. Because 

Pedro alleged that she suffered an injury in fact, she has standing 

to pursue her complaint.”); Diedrich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 

839 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2016) (standing where Plaintiffs alleged that 

they “have suffered damage to their credit and been forced to pay 

Ocwen greater payments and a higher interest rate”); Santangelo v. 

Comcast Corp., 162 F. Supp. 3d 691 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (“a depleted 

credit score is sufficient to constitute an injury-in-fact for the 

purposes of establishing Article III standing”); Binns v. Ocwen Loan 

Servicing, LLC, No. 14- 01764, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132743, 2015 

WL 5785693, at *9 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2015) (“injuries to plaintiffs’ 

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 32 of 36
33

credit scores and reputations were considered intangible harms”); 

Rothman v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 13-03381, 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 141100, 2014 WL 4966907, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) 

(“Injury to a credit score is sufficient to constitute ‘actual 

damages’”); Green v. RentGrow, Inc., No. 2:16cv421, 2016 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 166229 (“A decrease in credit score may still establish an 

injury in fact sufficient to confer standing”); Adams v. Fifth Third 

Bank, No. 3:16-CV-00218-TBR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18932 (W.D. 

Ky. Feb. 9, 2017) (“Plaintiffs’ allegations of lower credit scores ... are 

sufficient to allege a concrete injury-in-fact for the purposes of 

standing under Article III.”); and, Coulbertson v. Experian Info. Sols., 

Inc., No. 16-cv-05672-RS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69484 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 24, 2017) (“At a minimum, Coulbertson has alleged a 

sufficient injury-in-fact through her claim that her credit score 

suffered as a result of the credit report she disputes”). 

134. 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 herein.

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 33 of 36
34

135. 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 Ms. DeRiso 

herein.

136. Defendant violated sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA 

by engaging in the following conduct that violates 15 U.S.C. 

§1681s-2(b):

a. Willfully and negligently failing to conduct an 

investigation of the inaccurate information that Ms. 

DeRiso disputed;

b. Willfully and negligently failing to review all relevant 

information concerning Ms. DeRiso ’s account provided 

to this Defendant;

c. Willfully and negligently failing to report the inaccurate 

status of the inaccurate information to all credit 

reporting agencies;

d. Willfully and negligently failing to properly participate, 

investigate and comply with the reinvestigations that 

were conducted by any and all credit reporting agencies 

concerning the inaccurate information disputed by Ms. 

DeRiso;

e. Willfully and negligently continuing to furnish and 

disseminate inaccurate and derogatory credit, account 

and other information concerning the Ms. DeRiso to 

credit reporting agencies and other entities despite 

knowing that said information was inaccurate; and,

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 34 of 36
35

f. Willfully and negligently failing to comply with the 

requirements imposed on furnishers of information 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

137. Defendant’s conduct was a direct and proximate cause, 

as well as a substantial factor, in causing the injuries, damages and 

harm to Ms. DeRiso that are outlined more fully above, and as a 

result, Defendant is liable to compensate Ms. DeRiso for the full 

amount of statutory, actual and punitive damages, along with 

attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as such other relief permitted by 

law.

I. JURY DEMAND

138. Plaintiff, Ms. DeRiso hereby demands a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable.

II. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, GINA DERISO RINIKER, by and 

through her attorneys, respectfully prays for Judgment to be 

entered in their favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows:

a. All actual compensatory damages suffered;

b. Statutory damages;

c. Punitive damages;

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 35 of 36
36

d. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

e. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable 

Court.

Respectfully submitted, 

Robert C. Gindel Jr., P.A.

By: s/ Robert C. Gindel, Jr.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 2, 2022

Robert C. Gindel, Jr.

FL Bar No. 470740 

ROBERT C. GINDEL, JR., PA

1500 Gateway Blvd, Suite 220

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

Telephone: (561) 649-2344

Facsimile: (561) 965-8550

E-Mail: robertgindel@robertgindel.com

Case 9:22-cv-80807-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 36 of 36