UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 

ABDIEL MUNOZ MESA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, 

and CITIGROUP, INC. a/k/a

CITIBANK NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

a Delaware Corporation,

Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Abdiel Munoz Mesa (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant Equifax Information Services

LLC (“Equifax”), and Citigroup, Inc. also known as Citibank North America, Inc. (“Citibank”)

(collectively, the “Defendants”) for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 

28 U.S.C. § 1337. 

2. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides here, Defendants transact 

business here, and the complained conduct of Defendants occurred here. 

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Miami, 

Dade County, Florida. 

4. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (“Defendant Equifax” or “Equifax”) 

is a Georgia limited liability company whose registered agent in Florida is Corporation Service 

Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2525.

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 1 of 12
5. Defendant Citigroup, Inc. aka Citibank North America, Inc. (“Defendant Citibank” 

or “Citibank”) is a Delaware Corporation with Headquarters located at 388 Greenwich Street New 

York, NY 10013, and whose registered agent is CT Corporation, 1200 South Pine Island Road, 

Plantation, Florida 33324. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6. Plaintiff respectfully, demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. This action involves derogatory reporting of a credit account furnished by Citibank 

CBNA (the “Account”) that is being reported to Plaintiff’s credit profile with Equifax. Plaintiff 

contends that the account is not his and that he did not open the account. Specifically, in or about 

late 2021, Plaintiff discovered that a Citibank CBNA credit account and an American Express 

credit card were opened in his name. After further investigation, Plaintiff learned that his personal 

information had been compromised, including his Florida driver license number, social security 

number, and date of birth. It was also later discovered that the fraudster used an inaccurate address, 

that diverted the physical credit cards, and mail for the fraudulent accounts away from Plaintiff’s 

current address.

8. In or about January 2022, Plaintiff filed a police report with the Miami-Dade Police 

Department for fraudulent use of his identification/information, regarding the Citibank and 

American Express credit accounts that were opened in his name, without his knowledge or consent.

9. In or about February 2022 Plaintiff submitted online disputes to Equifax stating that 

the Accounts were not his and that he did not open the Accounts.

10. The Citibank and American Express accounts were deleted from Plaintiff’s credit 

report in or about April 2022. However, the Citibank CBNA credit card account was added back 

to the credit report. Plaintiff has submitted subsequent disputes, but the inaccurate reporting of the 

Citibank CBNA credit card account remains.

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 2 of 12
ALLEGATIONS

11. In or about February 2022, Plaintiff submitted an online Dispute (the “Dispute”) 

for a Citibank account (“the Account”) to Defendant Equifax, (the “Credit Reporting Agency” or 

“CRA”). 

12. In response to the Dispute, the CRA promptly and properly gave notice to 

Defendant Citibank (“the Creditor”) of the Dispute in accordance with the FCRA. Rather than 

taking the necessary action and conducting an appropriate investigation, however, Defendant 

Citibank failed to modify, delete, or block the inaccurate information reported on Plaintiff’s 

account and, instead, continue to report inaccurate information as to Plaintiff. 

ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING THE CREDITOR - CITIBANK

13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs of this 

Complaint. 

14. Defendant Creditor is a “furnisher of information” that regularly and in the ordinary 

course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about 

consumer transactions or experiences with any consumer. 

15. On a date better known by the Defendant Creditor, the CRA promptly and properly 

gave notice to Defendant Creditor of Plaintiff’s Dispute in accordance with the FCRA.

16. In response to the notice, it received from the CRA regarding Plaintiff’s Dispute, 

Defendant Creditor did not, and otherwise failed, to conduct a reasonable investigation into the 

Account which is the subject of the Dispute. 

17. In response to receiving notice from the CRA regarding Plaintiff’s Dispute, 

Defendant Creditors failed to correct and/or delete information they knew to be inaccurate and/or 

which Defendant Creditor could not otherwise verify. 

18. Instead of conducting a reasonable investigation, Defendant Creditor erroneously

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 3 of 12
validated the Account and reported and continues to report inaccurate information about Plaintiff 

to the CRA. In contrast, Creditor American Express conducted a reasonable investigation, 

and did not continue to report inaccurate information about the Account opened by 

fraudulent means.

ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING EQUIFAX

19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing paragraphs of this 

Complaint. 

20. Equifax is engaged in the business of credit reporting and is commonly referred to 

as a “Credit Bureau.” Equifax regularly obtains and analyzes financial information about consumer 

transactions or experiences with any consumer. 

21. Equifax is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by § 1681a(f) of the 

consumers and compiles the information into “credit reports,” which it provides to third parties.

22. On or about February 2022, Plaintiff submitted an online dispute regarding the 

Account to Defendant Equifax stating that the Account was not his, he did not open the Account, 

and that he was a victim of identity theft.

23. Despite receiving Plaintiff’s dispute and the fact that Plaintiff does not owe the 

amounts reported by Defendant continues to report Plaintiff’s accounts inaccurately. 

24. Continuing to report the status of Plaintiff’s accounts in this fashion is significant. 

By continuing to report the status of Plaintiff’s accounts in this fashion, lenders believe Plaintiff 

has had a recent, major delinquency negatively reflecting on the consumer’s credit worthiness by 

impacting their credit score negatively. 

25. Credit scoring algorithms take the status of Plaintiff’s accounts into consideration 

when generating a credit score and showing this incorrect account status would cause a lower 

credit score to be generated. 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 4 of 12
26. As of the filing of this Complaint, Equifax, nor anyone on Equifax’s behalf, has 

contacted Plaintiff to further investigate the Dispute. 

27. Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. 

28. Equifax failed to review and consider all relevant information submitted by 

Plaintiff. 

29. Equifax failed to conduct an independent investigation and, instead, deferred to the 

Creditor despite the evidence and/or information Plaintiff provided to it (Equifax). 

30. Equifax possessed evidence that the information was inaccurate as described by 

Plaintiff in the Dispute; however, Equifax failed to correct the information. 

31. Equifax’s reporting of inaccurate information is the subject of the dispute, despite 

evidence that said information is inaccurate, evidence Equifax’s failure to establish or follow 

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit reports and 

file. 

32. Equifax did not conduct any independent investigation after it (Equifax) received 

Plaintiff’s dispute and, instead, chose to parrot the information it (Equifax) received from the 

Creditor despite being in possession of evidence that the information was inaccurate. 

33. Without any explanation or reason, Equifax continues to report this false, 

inaccurate, or otherwise incomplete information, about Plaintiff. 

34. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the incorrect reporting and Equifax’s 

failure to correct the credit report pertaining to Plaintiff. 

COUNT 1 

WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

(Against Defendant Equifax) 

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-12 and 19-34 of this Complaint. 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 5 of 12
36. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or follow reasonable 

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the credit reports and credit 

files published and maintained concerning Plaintiff. 

37. Equifax failed to establish or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum 

possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit reports and credit files when reinvestigating Plaintiff’s 

dispute of the information contained in Plaintiff’s Equifax credit report. 

38. Equifax’s procedures were per se deficient by reason of these failures in ensuring 

maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit reports and credit files. 

39. Equifax has willfully and recklessly failed to comply with the FCRA. The failures 

of Equifax to comply with the FCRA include, but are not limited to, the following: [a] the failure 

to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information 

reported; [b] the failure to correct erroneous personal information regarding Plaintiff after a 

reasonable request by Plaintiff; [c] the failure to remove and/or correct the inaccuracy and 

derogatory credit information after a reasonable request by Plaintiff; [d] the failure to promptly 

and adequately investigate information which Equifax had notice was inaccurate; [e] the continual 

placement of inaccurate information into the credit report of Plaintiff after being advised by 

Plaintiff that the information was inaccurate; [f] the failure to note in the credit report that Plaintiff 

disputed the accuracy of the information; [g] the failure to promptly delete information that was 

found to be inaccurate, or could not be verified, or that the source of information had advised 

Equifax to delete; and [h] the failure to take adequate steps to verify information Equifax had 

reason to believe was inaccurate before including it in the credit report of the consumer. 

40. The conduct, action and inaction of Equifax was willful, thereby rendering Equifax

liable for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by a judge and/or 

jury pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681(n). 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 6 of 12
41. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees from Equifax in 

an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681(n). 

42. The appearance of the accounts on Plaintiff’s credit report, namely, those accounts 

identified by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s dispute to Equifax, was the direct and proximate result of 

Equifax’s willful failure to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible 

accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit report in violation of the 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). 

43. As a result of the conduct, action, and inaction, of Equifax, Plaintiff suffered 

damage by loss of credit, loss of ability to purchase and benefit from credit, emotional distress, 

and the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denial. 

44. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant Equifax, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: [1] actual damages pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(1); [2] statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A); [3] 

statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2); [4] after reasonable showing by evidence 

in the record or proffered by Plaintiff which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such, 

punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2); [5] costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1640(a)(3) and 1681n(a)(3); and [6] any other relief that this Court deems 

appropriate under the circumstances. 

COUNT 2

NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

(Against Defendant Equifax) 

45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-12 and 19-44 of this Complaint. 

46. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A) by failing to conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation with respect to the disputed information. 

47. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 7 of 12
limitation, Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(4) by failing to review and consider all relevant 

information submitted by the Plaintiff with respect to the disputed information. 

48. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5) by failing to delete the inaccurate information. 

49. Additionally, Equifax negligently failed to report accounts identified by Plaintiff as 

“disputed” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 168li(c).

50. Equifax has negligently failed to comply with the FCRA. The failures of Equifax

to comply with the FCRA include, but are not limited to, the following: [a] the failure to follow 

reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported; [b] 

the failure to correct erroneous personal information regarding Plaintiff after a reasonable request 

by Plaintiff; [c] the failure to remove and/or correct the inaccuracy and derogatory credit 

information after a reasonable request by Plaintiff; [d] the failure to promptly and adequately 

investigate information which Equifax had notice was inaccurate; [e] the continual placement of 

inaccurate information into the credit report of Plaintiff after being advised by Plaintiff that the 

information was inaccurate; [f] the failure to note in the credit report that Plaintiff disputed the 

accuracy of the information; [g] the failure to promptly delete information that was found to be 

inaccurate, or could not be verified, or that the source of information had advised Equifax to 

delete; and [h] the failure to take adequate steps to verify information Equifax had reason to believe 

was inaccurate before including it in the credit report of the consumer. 

51. The conduct, action, and inaction, of Equifax was negligent, thereby rendering 

Equifax liable for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by a 

judge and/or jury pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681(n). 

52. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees from Equifax in 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 8 of 12
an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681(n). 

53. As a result of the conduct, action and inaction of Equifax, Plaintiff suffered damage 

by loss of credit, loss of ability to purchase and benefit from credit, emotional distress, and the 

mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment of credit denial. 

54. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant Equifax, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: [1] actual damages pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1); [2] costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1681o(a)(2); and [3] any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. 

COUNT 3

WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

(Against Defendant Citibank) 

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-18 of this Complaint. 

56. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) by failing to conduct a 

reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information. 

57. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(B) by failing to review all 

relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agencies. 

58. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E) by failing to delete the 

inaccurate information. 

59. Upon information and belief, Defendant Citibank was aware of the FCRA 

obligations to reasonably investigate Dispute when it received notice of Plaintiff’s dispute. 

60. When Defendant Citibank received notice of Plaintiff’s dispute from the CRA, 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 9 of 12
Defendant Citibank could and should have reviewed its own systems and previous 

communications with the Plaintiff as part of its investigation. 

61. Defendant Citibank would have discovered that the information it was reporting 

about Plaintiff was inaccurate if Defendant Creditor had reviewed its own systems and previous 

communications with the Plaintiff. 

62. Defendant Citibank’s investigation was per se deficient by reason of these failures 

on Defendant Citibank’s investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute. 

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Citibank’s violations of § 1681s-2(b), 

Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including but not limited to: (i) money lost attempting to fix 

Plaintiff’s credit; (ii) denial of financing for home loans (iii) loss of time attempting to cure the 

errors in Plaintiff’s credit; (iv) mental anguish, added stress, aggravation, embarrassment, and 

other related impairments to the enjoyment of life such as headaches, irritability, anxiety and loss 

of sleep; (v) reduction in credit score; and (vi) apprehensiveness to apply for credit due to fear of 

rejection. 

64. Defendant Citibank’s actions in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), were willful 

rendering it liable for actual or statutory damages as well as punitive damages as the Court may 

allow and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1681n. 

65. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant Citibank, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: [1] actual damages pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(1); [2] costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1681o(a)(2); and [3] any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 10 of 12
COUNT 4

NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

(Against Defendant Citibank) 

66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-18 and 55-65 of this Complaint. 

67. On at least one occasion within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) by failing to conduct a 

reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information. 

68. On one or more occasions within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(B) by failing to review all 

relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agencies. 

69. On one or more occasions within the past year, by example only and without 

limitation, Defendant Citibank violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E) by failing to delete the 

inaccurate information. 

70. When Defendant Citibank received notice of Plaintiff’s dispute from the CRA, 

Defendant Citibank could and should have reviewed its own systems and previous 

communications with the Plaintiff as part of its investigation. 

71. Defendant Citibank would have discovered that the information it was reporting 

about Plaintiff was inaccurate if Defendant Citibank had reviewed its own systems and previous 

communications with the Plaintiff. 

72. Defendant Citibank’s investigation was per se deficient by reason of these failures 

on Defendant Creditor’s investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute. 

73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Citibank’s violations of § 1681s-2(b), 

Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including but not limited to: (i) money lost attempting to fix 

Plaintiff’s credit; (ii) denial of financing for home loans (iii) loss of time attempting to cure the 

errors in Plaintiff’s credit; (iv) mental anguish, added stress, aggravation, embarrassment, and 

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 11 of 12
other related impairments to the enjoyment of life such as headaches, irritability, anxiety and loss 

of sleep; (v) reduction in credit score; and (vi) apprehensiveness to apply for credit due to fear of 

rejection. 

74. Defendant Citibank’s actions constitute negligent noncompliance with the FCRA 

rendering it liable for actual damages as well as attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined by 

the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681o. 

Dated: September 12, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Jennifer G. Simil .

JENNIFER G. SIMIL, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 1018195

E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com

JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118259

E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Phone: 954-907-1136

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:22-cv-22898-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2022 Page 12 of 12