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

Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. (SBN 167698)

pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

James M. Treglio, Esq. (SBN 228077)

jtreglio@keeganbaker.com

KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP

6156 Innovation Way

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Tel: (760) 929-9303

Fax: (760) 929-9260

Walter Haines, Esq. (SBN 71075)

walter@whaines.com

THE UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP

5500 Bolsa Avenue, Ste 201

Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Telephone: (310) 234-5678

Facsimile: (562) 256-1006

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SERGIO MARQUEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BY AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO MARQUEZ, an individual, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, a National Association with its

principle place of business in North Carolina;

Defendant.

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Sergio Marquez (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Marquez”) by his attorneys, individually and

on behalf of others similarly situated, alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and his acts stated

herein, and as to all other matters upon information and belief as follows:

1. This class action arises from Defendants’ acquisition and use of credit reports and

investigative consumer reports (referred to collectively as “consumer reports”) to conduct background

checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and former employees. Defendants routinely obtain and

use information from consumer reports in connection with their hiring practices without complying with the

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), and the Investigative Consumer Reporting

Class Action Complaint 1

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 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

Agencies Act, California Civil Code § 1786, et seq. (“ICRAA”). Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated, seeks general, compensatory, and punitive damages due to Defendants’ systematic

and willful violation of the FCRA and the ICRAA, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief for

Defendants’ violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business & Professions

Code § 17200.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1581p. The Court also has

personal jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff submits to the jurisdiction of the Court and Plaintiff

is informed and believes that Defendant Bank of America, N.A., at all times mentioned herein has

maintained a regional headquarters in San Francisco, California, has transacted business in this judicial

district, in County of San Francisco and in the State of California. Moreover, by doing business in this

judicial district and committing the statutory violations alleged herein in this judicial district, Defendant

Bank of America, N.A.,’s conduct has had an adverse effect upon the finances of residents of this judicial

district.

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (c) because as a

corporation Defendant is “deemed to reside in any judicial district in which [they are] subject to personal

jurisdiction,” and because the alleged acts giving rise to the statutory violations alleged herein arose in this

judicial district. Further, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Bank of America, N.A., keeps and

maintains a regional headquarters in San Francisco, California.

PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff SergioMarquez is an United States citizen and is domiciled in the state of California.

In October of 2016, Plaintiff Marquez applied for a position as a Mortgage Loan Officer with the Defendant,

Bank of America, N.A., was subject to an investigative consumer report conducted by the Defendant, and

was denied employment by Defendant Bank of America, N.A., due to the appearance of a misdemeanor

conviction from 1993, which was later dismissed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §1203.4(a). 

/ / /

/ / /

Class Action Complaint 2

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 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

B. DEFENDANTS

5. Defendant Bank of America is a National Association, registered in Delaware, with its

principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Further, at all relevant times hereto, Bank

of America has done business in California and in this judicial district and Plaintiff is informed and believes

that Bank of America keeps a regional headquarters at 555 California Street, San Francisco, California.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. This case arises out of Defendant’s unlawful policies and procedures by which it obtains and

uses consumer reports of applicants seeking employment but fails to provide applicants with the statutorily

required disclosures, conducts investigative consumer reports for an impermissible purpose, and does not 

lacks the privacy policy required by law. Further, the investigative consumer reports include convictions

that occurred more than seven years prior to the investigative consumer report was generated. For these

violations, Plaintiff and members of the Class are seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 under the

FCRA, actual damages under the ICRAA, and injunctive relief and restitutionary disgorgement under the

UCL.

7. Defendant Bank of America is a “person” under the FCRA, as defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(b). Plaintiff and all those similarly situated qualify as “consumers” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1681a(c). As a matter of policy and practice, Defendant obtains and uses consumer reports on applicants

seeking employment with Bank of America. The consumer reports used byDefendants qualifyas “consumer

reports” under the FCRA, as defined by 15 U.S.C § 1681a(d) because the reports indicate the consumer’s

credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, or mode of living, and are

used to consider the consumer for employment. These reports also qualify as an “investigative consumer

report” under Cal. Civil Code § 1786.2(c).

8. During the Class Period, Plaintiff and each putative class member applied for employment

with Bank of America. As a matter of policy and practice, Bank of America requires all applicants to

undergo an investigative consumer report, which can be conducted byBank of America’s Corporate Security

department. Bank of America’s disclosures to Plaintiff, and other applicants, do not indicate that in

conducting the investigative consumer report Bank of America will consider convictions for misdemeanors

that occurred more than seven years prior to the application, and which have been legally expunged.

Class Action Complaint 3

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 3 of 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

9. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff and others similarly situated

have been injured including,without limitation, having their privacyand statutoryrights violated in violation

of the FCRA and the ICRAA. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, statutory,

actual, and compensatorydamages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and expenses of litigation including

costs and attorney fees.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the proposed class is easily ascertainable and there is a

well-defined community of interest in the litigation, as described further below.

11. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated

pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without prejudice to later revision, the class

which Plaintiff seeks to represent are composed of:

Class I (FCRA Applicant Class):

All persons who applied for employment with Bank of America commencing from two (2) years

immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who (i) applied for employment with Bank of

America; (ii) were the subject of a consumer report used by Bank of America for employment

purposes; (iii) had the consumer report contain information on convictions occurring more than

seven years prior to the consumer report; and (iv) were the subject of an adverse employment action

by Bank of America.

Class II (ICRAA Applicant Class):

All California citizens who applied for employment with Bank of America commencing from four

(4) years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit who (i) applied for employment with Bank

of America; (ii) were the subject of a consumer report used by Bank of America for employment

purposes; (iii) had the consumer report contain information on convictions occurring more than

seven years prior to the consumer report; and (iv) were the subject of an adverse employment action

by Bank of America.

12. Members of the Classes and Subclasses described above will be referred to as “class

members.” Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definition(s) and to add additional

subclasses as appropriate. Defendants and their shareholders, officers, directors, and managing agents are

excluded from the Class. Plaintiff reserves the right under Rule 23 to amend or modify the Class definition

and Class Period with greater particularityor further division into subclasses orlimitation to particular issues

as warranted as additional facts are discovery by Plaintiff during his future investigations.

/ / /

Class Action Complaint 4

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 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

13. Numerosity: This action is properly maintainable as a class action. Although Plaintiff does

not, as yet, know the exact size of each class and subclass, based upon the nature of the Defendants’

business, Plaintiff believes that there are numerous Class members, and that Class members are

geographically dispersed throughout the United States of America. Thus, each class and subclass is

sufficiently numerous to make joinder impracticable, if not completely impossible. The disposition of the

claims of the members of each class and subclass through this class action will benefit both the parties and

this Court. In addition, each class and subclass is readily identifiable from information and records in the

possession of Bank of America, the members of each class and subclass, and third parties. 

14. Commonality: There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

involved affecting the parties to be represented. The questions of law and fact to each class and subclass

predominate over questions which may affect individual class and subclass members, including the

following:

(a) Whether the investigative consumer reports contained information regarding misdemeanor

convictions older than seven years, and/or information regarding arrests that did not lead to convictions;

(b) Whether Defendants willfully violated the FCRA, requiring statutory damages pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1681n(a);

(c) Whether Defendants’ conduct in violation of the FCRA, requiring statutory damages of $100 to

$1,000 per Class Member pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)

(d) Whether Defendants’ conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of the UCL;

(e) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; and

(f) Whether Defendants are liable for attorney fees and costs.

15. Typicality: Plaintiff and the Class members’ claims for restitution and damages arise from

and were caused by Bank of America denial and failure to provide adequate notice under the FCRA and

ICRAA, the Defendants unlawfully obtaining the investigative consumer reports of Plaintiff and the

members of the ICRAA Class, and the Defendants willfully providing information in the investigative

consumer reports. For these violations, Plaintiff and members of Class Iseek statutory damages of not less

than $100 and not more than $1,000 per individual, and Plaintiff and members of Class II actual damages

for violations of the ICRAA. 

Class Action Complaint 5

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 5 of 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

16. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has

no interest that is contrary to or in conflict with those members of the Class he seeks to represent. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in the prosecution of complex class

action litigation involving the statutory violations alleged herein to further ensure such protection and he

intends to prosecute this action vigorously. 

17. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk

of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would

establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the Class and would lead to repetitious

trials of the numerous common questions of fact and law. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be

encountered in the management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. As

a result, a class action is far superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy.

18. Superiority: The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff and the

members of Class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure

to afford relief to Plaintiff and Class for the claims alleged and the disposition of whose claims in a class

action will provide substantial benefits to both the parties and the Court because:

(a) The individual damages involved are such that individual actions or otherindividualremedies

are impracticable and litigating individual actions would be too costly;

(b) Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions which mayaffect

individual members of the Class;

(c) If each member of the Class were required to file an individual lawsuit, the Defendant would

necessarily gain an unconscionable advantage since it would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited

resources of each individual member of the Class with its vastly superior financial and legal resources;

(d) The costs of individual suits could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be

recovered;

(e) Proof of a common business practice or factual pattern which Plaintiff experienced is

representative of that experienced by the Class and will establish the right of each of the members to recover

on the causes of action alleged; and

Class Action Complaint 6

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 6 of 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

(f) Individual actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be unnecessary and

duplicative of this litigation.

19. Notice to the members of the Class may be made by first-class mail addressed to all persons

who have been individually identified by Defendant through access to Defendant's records. Alternatively,

if Defendant cannot produce a list of Class members' names and addresses, the members of the Class may

be notified by publication in the appropriate media outlets, and by posting notices in Defendant's places of

business.

20. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of Defendants’

wrongful conduct as alleged herein. Absent a representative action, Plaintiff and the Class will continue to

suffer losses, thereby allowing these violations of law to proceed without remedy, and allowing Defendants

to retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains. 

21. In addition, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 

PLAINTIFF SERGIO MARQUEZ

22. Plaintiff SERGIO MARQUEZis a licensed Mortgage Loan Officer, and licensed through the

Nationwide Multi-State Licensing System (NMLS) and the State of California as a Mortgage Loan

Originator since 2011. For each and every position as a Mortgage Loan Officer, Plaintiff was subject to an

investigative consumer report and background check, including one by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In order to be a licensed Mortgage Loan Officer with the State of California, Mr. Marquez was also required

to undergo a criminal background check, as well as participate in annual continuing education through the

NMLS.

23. In October of 2016, Plaintiff was employed byWells Fargo, N.A., and earning approximately

$60,000 per year in commissions as a Mortgage Loan Officer, when he applied to become a Mortgage Loan

Officer with Bank of America. Unlike Wells Fargo, N.A., the Mortgage Loan Officer position with Bank

of America is not strictly commission based. Rather, all Mortgage Loan Officers receive $5,000 per month

in salary, plus commissions. As a Mortgage Loan Officer with Bank of America, Plaintiff could reasonably

expect to receive up to $120,000 per year in compensation, a significant increase in earnings.

/ / /

Class Action Complaint 7

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 7 of 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

24. After he applied, and interviewed for the position of Mortgage Loan Officer with Bank of

America, Plaintiff received an offer letter from Bank of America which informed him that he would be hired

subject to a credit check, a criminal background check (defined as an “investigative consumer report” under

the FCRA and ICRAA), and an employment check. The position offered to Plaintiff would pay him

approximately $120,000 per year, as well as provide benefits, including, but not limited to health insurance,

dental insurance, vision insurance, life insurance, paid vacation and other benefits, such as discounted auto

insurance, prepaid legal services, tuition reimbursement, adoption reimbursement, and elder care services. 

25. Since Plaintiff had undergone similar credit checks, criminal background checks, and

employment checks to become a licensed Mortgage Loan Originator and when he applied for and received

employment with Wells Fargo, N.A., in 2013, and had undergone numerous criminal background checks

previously, Plaintiff agreed to undergo a criminal background check, which was conducted by Bank of

America Corporate Security, a division and/or department of Bank of America.

26. On October 31, 2016, Bank of America Corporate Security performed the criminal

background check on the Plaintiff. On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff was informed by letter that Bank of

America Corporate Security that the background check conducted indicated the information it received,

“revealed information that may make you ineligible for the position you applied for.” Attached to that letter

is a report allegedly generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On the report, it lists that Plaintiff was

convicted of various misdemeanor offenses in September of 1993, some twenty-three years prior to the

criminal background check. Additionally, the background check clearlyindicated that, pursuant toCalifornia

Penal Code section 1203.4(a), the convictions had been dismissed. 

27. Thus, in violation of the FCRA and ICRA, the investigative consumer report contained

information on Plaintiff’s misdemeanor convictions from 1993 (more than seven years prior to the report)

which had be expunged from his record. As a result of the information contained in the investigative

consumer report, obtained by Bank of America on October 31, 2016, Bank of America rescinded its offer

of employment to Plaintiff causing him financial harm.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Class Action Complaint 8

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 8 of 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

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CREDIT REPORTING ACT

(Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(B) and 15 U.S.C. § 1681m)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Class I Against All Defendants)

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

29. The Federal Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq. imposes limitations on the

issuance of consumer reports.

30. The Act defines consumer reports as 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--(A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household

purposes; (B) employment purposes; or (C) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.

31. Defendant is a person as defined by15 U.S.C.A. § 1681a in that it furnished consumer reports

to third parties 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 credit or

insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and for employment purposes.

32. On or about October 31, 2016 and on other dates currently unknown to Plaintiff, Defendant

issued consumer reports about Plaintiff and issued consumer reports regarding the other members of the

class during the class period defined above for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the

consumer’s eligibility for or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; or

for employment purposes.

33. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681c prohibits the issuance of consumer reports containing information

about civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from date of entry, antedate the report by more

than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period and

anyother adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report

by more than seven years.

Class Action Complaint 9

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 9 of 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

34. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681c by furnishing consumer reports regarding the

Plaintiff and the Class I Members that contained information of records of arrest and other adverse item of

information including criminal charges that were dismissed, that, from date of entry, antedated the report

by more than seven years.

35. Defendant furnished consumer reports regarding the Plaintiff on or about October 31, 2016

and on other dates currently unknown that included information about a 1993 arrest and charges for false

impersonation and driving with a suspended license. Both charges were dismissed, pursuant to Cal. Penal

Code section 1203.4A.

36. Defendant wilfully violated 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681c by instituting a policy and practice of

identifying arrests and the filing of criminal charges that did not result in a conviction and reporting those

events indefinitely even when they predated the reports by more than seven years. Defendant knew or was

recklessly indifferent to the legal prohibitions on reporting certain arrests, charges and other adverse

information but intentionally crafted and implemented a policy to report such information in violation of the

FCRA.

37. As the result of Defendant’s willful violations of 15 U.S.C.A. §1681c Plaintiff and the class

members are entitled to actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of

not less than $100 and not more than $1,000, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FOR VIOLATION OF THE INVESTIGATIVE CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES ACT,

CIVIL CODE § 1786.18

(On behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class II Members Against Defendant Bank of America)

38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

39. California Civil Code §1786.18 prohibits an investigative credit reporting agency from

making or furnishing anyinvestigative consumer report containing records of arrest, indictment, information,

misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of a crime that, from the date of disposition, release, or parole,

antedate the report by more than seven years. These items of information shall no longer be reported if at

any time it is learned that, in the case of a conviction, a full pardon has been granted or, in the case of an

arrest, indictment, information, or misdemeanor complaint, a conviction did not result.

Class Action Complaint 10

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 10 of 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

40. Bank of America violated California Civil Code §1786.18 on or about May 15, 2016 as to

himself and on other dates currently unknown to Plaintiff as to the other members of the Class II, by issuing

investigative consumer reports about Plaintiff and the Class II members containing records of arrest,

indictment, information, misdemeanor complaint, or conviction of crimes that, from the date of disposition,

release, or parole, antedated the report bymore than seven years, including records from 1993 as to Plaintiff.

41. With respect to each of the aforementioned violations of the ICRAA provisions, Bank of

America is liable to Plaintiff and the Class II members in the amount of the greater of the actual damages

sustained as a result of the violations or $10,000 per violation pursuant to Civil Code § 1786.50 (a) (1).

42. Bank of America’s violations were willful or grossly negligent within the meaning of Civil

Code § 1786.50 (b), in that Bank of America knowingly failed to fulfill obligations without a good faith,

reasonable belief in the legality of their actions.

43. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class II members, seeks all available remedies

pursuanttoCal.Civ.Code § 1786.50, including statutorydamages and/or actual damages, punitive damages,

injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.)

(On Behalf of the Plaintiff and Class II Members Against All Defendants)

44. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every preceding paragraph of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

45. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. prohibits unfair competition in the

form of any “unlawful” and “unfair” business acts and practices. Defendants’ acts and practices described

in this Complaint constitute “unlawful” and “unfair” business acts and practices within the meaning of

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

46. Defendants have engaged in “unlawful” business acts and practices bytheir violations of state

and federal law by committing the acts as described above, including failing to provide Plaintiff and ICRAA

Subclass members with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in a document consisting solely of the disclosure,

a statement that the Plaintiff and class members may request additional disclosures concerning the nature

and scope of the investigation for the consumer report, a summary of the rights of Plaintiff and Class 

members, a statement that Plaintiff and Class II members may dispute the accuracy of the consumer report,

Class Action Complaint 11

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 11 of 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

and a copy of the consumer report following an adverse action or request for a copy as part of the application

process. Plaintiff and the Class reserve the right to allege other violations of law which constitute unlawful

acts or practices. 

47. The violations of these laws serve as “unlawful” business practices for purposes of Business

and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. and remedies are provided therein under Business and Professions

Code § 17203.

48. Defendants have also engaged in “unfair” business acts or practices in that the harm caused

by Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged above outweighs the utility of such conduct and such conduct

offends public policy, is immoral, unscrupulous, unethical, deceitful and offensive, causes substantial injury

to Plaintiff and Class members, and provides Defendants with an unfair competitive advantage over those

employers and businesses that abide by the state and federal laws alleged to have been violated by

Defendants herein. 

49. As a result of the conduct described above, Plaintiff and the Class II have no other adequate

remedy of law in that absent injunctive relief from the Court, Defendant is likely to continue to injure

Plaintiff and Class II members, and thus engendering a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. 

50. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff and Class II members seek an

order of this Court for equitable and/or injunctive relief in the form of requiring Defendants to correct their

illegal conduct that is necessary and proper to prevent Defendants from repeating their illegal and wrongful

practices as alleged above and to maintain the confidentiality of the information of Plaintiff and the Class

II already obtained by Defendants way of their illegal and wrongful practices set forth above. Because this

case is brought for the purposes of enforcing important rights affecting the public interest, Plaintiff and the

Class II also seek the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs in prosecuting this action against Defendants

under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and other applicable law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, requests of this Court

the following relief:

1. That the Court issue an Order certifying the classes and subclasses herein, appointing the

named Plaintiff as a representative of all others similarly situated, and appointing Keegan & Baker LLP and

Class Action Complaint 12

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 12 of 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

the United Employees Law Group, P.C., as counsel for members of the Classes;

2. For an Order requiring Defendants to identify each of the members of the classes and

subclasses by name, home address, and home telephone number;

3. For the creation of an administrative process wherein each injured member of the classes and

subclasses may submit a claim in order to receive his or her money;

4. For statutory, general, compensatory, and punitive damages for the classes and subclasses

according to proof at trial;

5. An award of appropriate equitable relief, including but not limited to preliminary, permanent,

and mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants and their agents from committing further

unlawful conduct in violation of the FCRA, ICRAA, and UCL;

6. Costs of suit, including attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681o, California Civil Code § 1786.50, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and the common

fund doctrine;

7. For interest at the legal rate of 10% per annum;

8. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: February 2, 2017 KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP

s/ James M. Treglio 

Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.

James M. Treglio, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff SERGIO MARQUEZ

Class Action Complaint 13

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 13 of 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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff and the Class hereby demand a jury trial on all claims for relief and claims with respect to

which they have a right to a jury trial.

Dated: February 2, 2017 KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP

s/ James M. Treglio 

Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.

James M. Treglio, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff SERGIO MARQUEZ

Class Action Complaint 14

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 14 of 14