1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SCOTT J. SAGARIA (BAR # 217981)

ELLIOT W. GALE (BAR #263326)

JOE B. ANGELO (BAR #268542)

SCOTT M. JOHNSON (BAR #287182)

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

2033 Gateway Place, 5

th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95110

408-279-2288 ph

408-279-2299 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

 CASE NO. 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

1. Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act;

2. Violation of California Consumer Credit 

Reporting Agencies Act;

COLBI TROESTER-MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Wells 

Fargo Bank, National Association; TD 

Bank USA, National Association and 

DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,

Defendants.

COMES NOW Plaintiff COLBI TROESTER-MILLER, an individual, based on information and 

belief, to allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This case arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) and the 

California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code 

§1785.25(a). Plaintiff seeks redress for the unlawful and deceptive practices committed 

by the Defendants in connection with their inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete 

reporting of Plaintiff’s debt included in Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. 

2. The United States Congress has found the banking system is dependent upon fair and 

accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 1 of 15
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence, 

which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. 

3. There exists today in the United States a pervasive and fundamental misunderstanding 

about the long term impact filing a consumer bankruptcy has on a consumer’s credit 

worthiness. Specifically, many consumers believe that because a bankruptcy can be 

reported on their credit report for ten years their credit worthiness will be ruined for the 

same length of time. This is not true. 

4. The majority of consumer Debtors who file consumer bankruptcy do so to raise their 

FICO Score and remedy their poor credit worthiness.

5. It is entirely possible for consumer Debtors to have over a 700 FICO Score within as 

little as 12 months after filing a consumer bankruptcy (Chapter 7 or Chapter 13). 

6. Creditors and lending institutions are aware of the misconception that filing a consumer 

bankruptcy destroys a consumer’s credit worthiness for ten years.

7. In an effort to perpetuate the aforementioned bankruptcy myth, creditors intentionally 

and routinely ignore credit reporting industry standards for accurately reporting 

bankruptcies and debts included in those bankruptcies in an effort to keep consumers’ 

credit scores low and their interest rates high. 

8. Creditors know that by deviating from recognized credit reporting standards consumers 

will have difficulty raising their credit scores and improving their credit worthiness. 

9. This was not the intent of Congress when enacting the Fair Credit Reporting Act and 

the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE

10. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations in each and 

every paragraph above, fully set forth herein. 

11. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and 1367, and 15 U.S.C. § 

1681

12. This venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff alleges that each and every defendant data furnisher was included in Plaintiff’s 

Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 2 of 15
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Plaintiff alleges that each and every Defendant is familiar with credit reporting industry 

standards and subscribes thereto. 

15. Plaintiff alleges that each and every Defendant understands that deviation from credit 

reporting industry standards can and often does result in denial of credit, higher interest 

rates, and prompts those making credit decisions to draw a more negative inference 

from the reported data than if the Defendants reported in accordance with the 

recognized industry standard.

16. Plaintiff alleges that all actions alleged herein by Defendants were done knowingly, 

intentionally, and in reckless disregard for credit reporting industry standards in an 

attempt to purposefully undermine Plaintiff’s fresh start via a Chapter 7 discharge. 

17. In the alternative Plaintiff alleges that each and every Defendant’s actions was the 

result of reckless policies and procedures that inevitably led to inaccurate, misleading, 

or incomplete credit reporting. 

FICO, Inc. 

18. FICO is a leading analytics software company with its principal headquarters located in 

San Jose California. FICO has over 130 patents related to their analytics and decision 

management technology, and regularly uses mathematical algorithms to predict 

consumer behavior including credit risk. 

19. The FICO Score has become the standard measure of consumer credit risk in the United 

States and is used in ninety percent of lending decisions. 

20. A FICO score consists of a three-digit number summarizing a consumer’s credit risk or 

likelihood to repay a loan. FICO periodically updates its scoring models resulting in 

multiple FICO Score versions. 

21. Base FICO Scores range from 300 to 850, while industry-specific FICO Scores range 

from 250-900. A higher FICO Score demonstrates lower credit risk or less likelihood of 

default. 

22. Different lenders use different versions of FICO Scores when evaluating a consumer’s 

credit worthiness. 

23. There are 28 FICO Scores that are commonly used by lenders. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 3 of 15
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. A consumer’s FICO Score is calculated based solely on information in consumer credit 

reports maintained at credit reporting agencies (CRAs). 

25. The three largest CRAs are Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax, Inc. and 

Transunion, LLC. 

26. FICO does not control what information is provided on a consumer’s credit report. 

Instead, the scoring models or algorithms are based on the premise that information 

provided by the CRAs is accurate and complies with credit reporting industry 

standards. 

27. There are five key factors that a FICO Score considers: 1) Payment History 2) Amount 

of Debt 3) Length of Credit History 4) New Credit and 5) Credit Mix. 

28. Each of the five factors is weighted differently by FICO. 

29. 35% of a consumer’s FICO Score relates to payment history, 30% relates to the amount 

of debt, 15% relates to the length of credit history, 10% relates to new credit, and the 

last 10% relates to a consumer’s credit mix or the different types of debts reported. 

30. Payment history refers to whether a consumer has paid their bills in the past, on time, 

late or missed payments. The more severe, recent, and frequent the late payment 

information, the greater the impact on a FICO Score. Public record items such as 

bankruptcy, foreclosure, judgments, and wage garnishments are also considered part of 

a consumer’s payment history. 

31. In factoring the severity of delinquent payments a FICO Score considers how late the 

payment continues to be, how much is owed, how recently this occurred, and how 

many delinquent accounts exist. 

32. Once a delinquent account has been remedied the longer the account stays current the 

more a consumer’s FICO Score should increase.

33. FICO Scores are entirely dependent upon information provided by data furnishers 

(DFs) to CRAs. 

34. The FICO scoring formula treats both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Bankruptcies similarly 

in terms of their impact on one’s FICO Score. Specifically, both Chapters have the 

same level of severity with respect to their FICO Score and for both, FICO uses the 

FILING DATE to determine how long ago the bankruptcy took place. 

Metro 2

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 4 of 15
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. The Consumer Data Industry Association is an international trade association 

representing the consumer credit, mortgage reporting, employment and tenant screening 

and collection service industries.

36. The credit reporting industry has adopted a standard electronic data reporting format 

called the Metro 2 format. The Metro 2 format was developed by the CDIA in an effort 

to universally report debts in a particular manner that is understood to be the most 

accurate way in which to report a debt. Specifically, Metro 2 format was designed to 

allow reporting of the most accurate and complete information on consumer’s credit 

history. 

37. The CDIA’s Metro 2 format is the credit reporting industry standard for accurate credit 

reporting. 

38. The credit reporting industry at large depends upon Metro 2 and the CDIA’s 

recommendations for reporting debt accurately. 

39. The CDIA is The expert on accurate credit reporting. In support of this allegation 

Plaintiff avers the following:

a. The CDIA offers a FCRA certificate program for all CRAs.

b. The CDIA offers a FCRA awareness program for all CRAs.

c. The CDIA offers a FCRA Certificate program for DFs.

d. The CDIA offers a FCRA awareness program for DFs.

e. The CDIA offers a Metro 2 Learning system to provide detailed instructions on 

the use of Metro 2 format to ensure understanding of the reporting guidelines 

for each field of the Metro 2 Format as well as the relationship between multiple 

fields.

f. The CDIA hosts workshops developed and authorized by Equifax, Experian, 

Innovis, and Transunion.

g. The CDIA developed a credit reporting resource guide for accurately reporting 

credit. 

40. The CDIA’s Metro 2 is accepted by all CRAs. 

41. The credit reporting accepted industry standards for reporting metro 2 accurately are 

found in the CDIA’s credit reporting resource guide (CRRG).

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 5 of 15
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42. The CRRG outlines the industry standards for most accurately reporting debts using 

Metro 2. 

43. The CRRG is not readily available to the public. It can be purchased online for 

$229.45. 

44. Even if a buyer is ready willing and able to pay for the CRRG, the CDIA will NOT 

grant access to the guide unless the buyer represents an organization included in the 

Metro 2 Access Policy. 

45. When FICO calculates credit scores the algorithms use Metro 2 information based on 

industry standards established by the CDIA.

46. The algorithms used by FICO in determining a consumer’s credit score are premised on 

the Metro 2 data received comporting with the CDIA’s recommendations for accurate 

credit reporting. 

47. If the Metro 2 data received by FICO deviates from industry standards an inaccurate or 

incorrect FICO Score results. If the resulting FICO Score is lower a consumer will be 

considered a higher credit risk resulting in less favorable lending terms. 

e-OSCAR

48. E-OSCAR is the web based Metro 2 compliant system developed by Experian

Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax, Inc.; TransUnion, LLC and Innovis that enables 

DFs and CRAs to create and respond to consumer credit disputes

49. When a consumer sends a dispute letter to a CRA the CRA then sends an automated 

credit dispute verification (ACDV) via e-Oscar to the DF.

50. The ACDV contains within it Metro 2 codes next to certain data fields associated with a 

credit file e.g. “Account Type” “07” (07 in Metro 2 refers to a Charge Account)

Bankruptcy Credit Reporting Industry Standards & Consumer 

Information Indicator

51. When a consumer files bankruptcy certain credit reporting industry standards exist.

52. Certain Metro 2 data is regularly expected and calculated by FICO when determining a 

consumer’s credit worthiness. 

53. The Consumer Information Indicator (CII) is a critical field in the Metro 2 Format that 

indicates a special condition that applies to a specific consumer. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 6 of 15
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

54. Under Metro 2 the CII must be reported only on the consumer to whom the information 

applies. 

55. It is the credit reporting industry standard to report a very specific CII upon the filing of 

a consumer bankruptcy. 

56. In the consumer bankruptcy context CII Metro 2 Code “A” denotes that a petition for 

Chapter 7 has been filed, is active, but no discharge has been entered. 

57. The CII Metro 2 Code “Z” indicates that a bankruptcy petition has been filed but the 

chapter is undesignated/unknown.

58. The CII Metro 2 Code “E” denotes that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy has been discharged. 

59. The CII field is a critical field for consumers and directly relates to and impacts a 

consumer’s credit worthiness. 

60. Failure to report the correct CII indicator will prompt those making credit decisions to 

draw a more negative inference regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness. 

61. A consumer’s FICO Score is directly related to the date on which a petition is filed and 

acknowledged. The more time that has passed since the filing of the bankruptcy, the 

less negative impact the bankruptcy will have on a consumer’s FICO Score. 

62. Failure to reference the bankruptcy filing (CII field) and or the correct petition date 

shall result in a lower FICO Score resulting in those making credit decisions to draw a 

more negative inference regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness.

Bankruptcy Credit Reporting Industry Standards & Payment history

63. When a consumer files bankruptcy certain credit reporting industry standards exist on 

how to properly report a consumer’s payment history. 

64. The filing of a consumer bankruptcy constitutes an order of relief under 11 U.S.C § 

301(b) and represents the watershed moment in a consumer’s bankruptcy. 

65. The order of relief’s enforcement mechanism is the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. §362 

which stays or prohibits numerous creditor activities including any act to collect, 

assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the 

case. 

66. When entered, a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 applies only to those debts that arose 

before the order of relief under 11 U.S.C. §301(B) i.e. pre-petition debts. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 7 of 15
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. Outside the bankruptcy context, the recognized credit reporting industry standard for 

reporting timely payments in a consumer’s payment history profile is to report the 

metro 2 code “0.” 

68. In metro 2 the “0” denotes that a payment was owed and received timely. A lengthy 

payment history showing timely payments results in a higher Fico Score or more 

favorable credit worthiness rating. Generally, when a “0” is reported the CRA’s reflect 

the 0 as an “ok” notation in a consumer’s payment history profile. 

69. Outside the bankruptcy context, in metro 2 a “1” denotes that an account is 30-59 days 

past due. Generally, when a “1” is reported the CRAs reflect the “1” as a “30” (30 days 

late) in the payment history section.

70. Outside the bankruptcy context, in metro 2 a “2” denotes an account is 60-89 days past 

due. Generally, when a “2” is reported the CRAs reflect the “2” as a “60” (60 days late) 

in the payment history section. 

71. Outside the bankruptcy context, in metro 2 a “3” denotes 90-119 days past due 

reflected by a “90” in the payment history; a “4” denotes an account 120-149 days past 

due reflected by a “120” in the payment history; a “5” denotes an account is 150-179 

days past due and reflected by a “150” in the payment history, a “6” denotes an account 

is 180 days past due; and an “L” denotes a charge off and reflected by a “CO” or 

“negative” in the payment history section. 

72. In the bankruptcy context, the recognized credit reporting industry standard for 

reporting payment history post-petition but pre discharge is to report the Metro 2 

indicator “D.” In metro 2 the “D” in the payment history profile reflects that no 

payment history is available.

73. The Metro 2 indicator “D” represents the most complete and accurate way in which to 

report the payment status of an account post-petition pre discharge. Specifically, the 

indicator “D” simultaneously illustrates that no payment was received; and in addition 

that the DF was not anticipating payment, nor would a DF accept payment directly 

from a consumer due to the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code.

74. Failure to adhere to the recognized credit reporting industry standards shall lower a 

consumer’s Fico Score resulting in those making credit decisions to draw a more 

negative inference regarding a consumer’s credit worthiness.

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 8 of 15
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Bankruptcy Filing

75. Prior to filing Chapter 7, Plaintiff pulled a credit report on October 13, 2014 to ensure 

all outstanding debt was properly listed and scheduled in Plaintiff’s petition. 

76. The credit report was pulled from a third party vendor CIN Legal Data Services.

77. Plaintiff alleges that all the information contained within the October 13, 2014 CIN 

report was compiled by information gathered by CIN directly from the three major 

CRAs- Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax, Inc. and Trans Union, LLC.

78. The CIN report contained within it Plaintiff’s estimated credit score of 622 based on the 

information provided by the CRAs. 

79. The CIN report also estimated Plaintiff’s 12-month post-bankruptcy credit score at 657.

80. Plaintiff alleges such scores were based on anticipated accurate credit reporting 

industry standards. 

81. Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on October 30, 2014 in order to 

reorganize and repair Plaintiff’s credit worthiness and FICO Score.

82. Post filing, Defendants would not accept payments directly from Plaintiff. 

83. Post filing, Defendants were not anticipating receiving payments directly from Plaintiff. 

84. Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was discharged on February 17, 2015. 

85. On June 2, 2015 Plaintiff ordered a three bureau report from Equifax, Inc. to ensure 

proper reporting by Plaintiff’s Creditors. 

86. Plaintiff noticed 2 different trade lines on the June 2, 2015 credit report all reporting 

inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information that did not comport with credit 

reporting industry standards. Specifically, multiple trade lines continued to report 

Plaintiff’s accounts as in collections, and/or charged off. 

87. In response, Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate tradelines via certified mail with Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax, Inc.; and TransUnion, LLC on July 2, 2015.

88. Plaintiff’s dispute letter specifically put each Creditor on notice that Plaintiff had filed 

for bankruptcy and the account was not reporting the bankruptcy accurately or worse 

not at all. Plaintiff specifically requested each Creditor investigate the proper way to 

report Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. Plaintiff noted that there should not be any past due 

balance reported, the account should not be listed as charged off, transferred or sold, 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 15
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with an inaccurate monthly payment or that the account is in collections. There should 

not be any late payments reported after Plaintiff’s case was filed and all creditors 

receiving a dispute needed to investigate how to properly report the debt after a Chapter 

7 bankruptcy filing. Last, Plaintiff noted that under Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 

Plaintiff expected the accounts to be reported disputed if the Creditor disagreed with 

Plaintiff’s dispute. 

89. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each CRA received Plaintiff’s dispute letter and 

in response sent Plaintiff’s dispute to each DF via an ACDV through e-OSCAR. 

90. On August 7, 2015 Plaintiff ordered a second three bureau report from Equifax, Inc. to 

ensure Plaintiff’s accounts had been updated.

91. On December 14, 2016 Plaintiff ordered a third three bureau report from Equifax, Inc. 

to ensure Plaintiff’s accounts had been updated.

92. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association was reporting Plaintiff’s account, 

beginning in 5490xxxx, as in collections and charged off.

93. The account is not with a past due balance and, therefore, cannot be in collections. The 

account status showing as in collections is inaccurate and facially inaccurate. 

94. Moreover, Defendant is not comporting with industry standards and is not listing the 

correct CII. The CII should have been updated to E instead kept as charged off and/or 

in collections.

95. Defendant TD Bank USA, National Association was reporting Plaintiff’s account, 

beginning in 4352xxxx, as in collections and charged off.

96. The account is not with a past due balance and, therefore, cannot be in collections. The 

account status showing as in collections is inaccurate and facially inaccurate. 

97. Moreover, Defendant is not comporting with industry standards and is not listing the 

correct CII. The CII should have been updated to E instead kept as charged off and/or 

in collections.

98. This account has been discharged and TD Bank has steadfastly refused to acknowledge 

the discharge. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 10 of 15
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

99. The actions of the Defendants as alleged herein are acts in violation of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). 

100. The actions of the Defendants as alleged herein are acts in violation of the Consumer 

Credit Reporting Agencies Act California Civil Code § 1785.25(a).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b))

Against Defendants and Does 1-100)

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and TD Bank USA, National Association

–Failure to Reinvestigate.

101.Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegation in each and every paragraph 

above as though fully set forth herein. 

102.15 USC 1681s-2(b) and 15 USC 1681i-(a)1 prohibits furnishers from providing any 

information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows 

or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate or misleading and 

requires a furnisher to update and or correct inaccurate information after being notified 

by a consumer reporting agency of a dispute by a consumer. 

103.Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and TD Bank USA, National 

Association violated section 1681s-2(b) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation 

and re-reporting misleading and inaccurate account information.

104.The CRAs provided notice to the Defendants that Plaintiff was disputing the inaccurate 

and misleading information but Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and TD Bank 

USA, National Association failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the 

information as required by the FCRA.

105. Based on Plaintiff’s dispute, Defendants should have known their accounts were included 

in Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The most basic investigation would include a simple 

review of well-established credit reporting industry standards. 

106. Plaintiff alleges Defendants did not review well established industry standards for credit 

reporting. 

107. If Defendants had reviewed such standards Defendants would have seen their reporting 

was not in compliance and consequently inaccurate and or incomplete. 

108. Such an investigation would be unreasonable. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 11 of 15
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

109. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants did not investigate whether Plaintiff filed for 

bankruptcy or whether their accounts were included.

110. The lack of investigation is unreasonable. 

111. Plaintiff further alleges that neither DF has properly trained those directly investigating 

disputes on Metro 2 generally or credit reporting industry standards and as such have 

developed reckless policies and procedures. 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.– Failure to Reinvestigate Disputed 

Information.

112. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegation in each and every paragraph 

above as though fully set forth herein.

113. After Plaintiff disputed the accounts mentioned above, each CRA was required to 

conduct a reasonable investigation and to delete any information that was not accurate 

under 15 USC 1681i-(a)1.

114. The most basic investigation required each CRA to send all relevant information via 

an ACDV to the furnishers which they did not do. 

115. Thus the CRAs failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and failed to correct the 

misleading and or inaccurate statements on the account within the statutory time 

frame or at all.

116. In the alternative Plaintiff alleges that each CRA has its own independent duty to 

conduct a reasonable investigation 15 USC 1681i-(a)1.

117. Each CRA is not a passive entity bound to report whatever information a DF 

provides. 

118. Plaintiff alleges that each CRA is readily familiar with Metro 2 guidelines and credit 

reporting industry standards. 

119. In fact, each CRA sponsors and authorizes workshops hosted by the CDIA that 

teach the following to DFs: 

a. Do not report delinquencies post petition pre discharge in the payment history 

section regardless of Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. Instead report the Metro 2 

indicator D. 

b. In Chapter 13 cases do not report past due balances post confirmation. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 12 of 15
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. In Chapter 13 cases do not report balances that are inconsistent with the terms 

of the Chapter 13 plan. 

d. In Chapter 13 cases do not report monthly payments that are inconsistent with 

the terms of the Chapter 13 plan.

e. The above reporting is the correct and accurate way to report debts included in 

consumer bankruptcy filings. 

120. Given the aforementioned, Plaintiff alleges that each CRA can and does suppress 

inaccurate information from being reported when DFs provide inaccurate 

information.

121. Each CRA can and does instruct DFs on how to properly report certain accounts from 

time to time upon request from the DF. 

122. Each CRA failed to conduct a reasonable investigation because any basic 

investigation would have uncovered that certain DFs were not following credit 

reporting industry standards. 

123. Each CRA would have known that Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 based on multiple 

other accounts reporting as much. 

124. Each CRA would have known that Plaintiff’s plan had been confirmed based on 

multiple other accounts reporting as much. 

125. Each CRA would have known that failure to report a CII given that a Chapter 13 was 

filed did not comport with industry standards. 

126. Each CRA would have known reporting a past due balance post confirmation does 

not comport with industry standards. 

127. Each CRA therefore did not do the most basic investigation regarding credit reporting 

industry standards otherwise the aforementioned would have been uncovered. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act

California Civil Code § 1785.25(a) Against Defendants and Does 1-100)

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and TD Bank USA, National Association

– Reporting Inaccurate Information to CRAs.

128. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein the allegation in each and every paragraph 

above as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 13 of 15
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

129. In the regular course of its business operations, Defendants routinely furnish 

information to credit reporting agencies pertaining to transactions between Defendants

and Defendant’s consumers, so as to provide information to a consumer’s credit 

worthiness, credit standing and credit capacity. 

130. Defendants intentionally and knowingly reported misleading and inaccurate account 

information to the CRAs that did not comport with well-established industry standards. 

131. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants re-reported the information contained herein in 

violation of California Civil Code § 1785.25(a).

132. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants had reason to know that the information reported 

on Plaintiff’s accounts were misleading, inaccurate, incomplete, and did not comport 

with well-established credit reporting industry standards. 

133. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had reason to know that by not comporting with wellestablished industry standards lenders will draw a more negative inference with respect 

to Plaintiff’s credit worthiness. 

134. Plaintiff alleges that the bankruptcy notices, disputes letters from all three credit 

reporting agencies, the consumer data industry resource guide, the language in the 

Chapter 7 filing and subsequent discharge order issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 

and results of its investigation should have provided notice to Defendants of their

misleading and inaccurate reporting as well as being noticed of the proof of claim 

forms sent by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. 

135. Defendants failed to notify Experian Information Solutions, Inc. that the information 

Defendant re-reported was inaccurate before the end of 30 business days, in violation of 

California Civil Code § 1785.25(a).

136. Defendants’ communications of false information, and repeated failures to investigate, 

and correct their inaccurate information and erroneous reporting were done knowingly, 

intentionally, and in reckless disregard for their duties and Plaintiff’s rights. 

137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful and untrue communications, 

Plaintiff has suffered actual damages including but not limited to inability to properly 

reorganize under Chapter 7, reviewing credit reports from all three consumer reporting 

agencies, time reviewing reports with counsel, sending demand letters, diminished 

credit score, and such further expenses in an amount to be determined at trial.

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 14 of 15
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop Defendants from 

engaging in the conduct described above;

2. Award statutory and actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and 

California Civil Code § 1785.31;

3. Award punitive damages in order to deter further unlawful conduct pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1681n; and California Civil Code § 1785.31

4. Award attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1681n & o; California Civil Code § 1785.31;

5. For determination by the Court that Creditor’s policies and practices are 

unlawful and in willful violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, et seq.; and

6. For determination by the Court that Creditor’s policies and practices are 

unlawful and in negligent violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681o;

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

Dated: January 26, 2017 /s/ Elliot Gale, Esq.

Scott Sagaria, Esq.

Elliot Gale, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial of this matter by jury.

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

Dated: January 26, 2017 /s/ Elliot Gale, Esq.

Scott Sagaria, Esq.

Elliot Gale, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:17-cv-00423-EMC Document 1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 15 of 15