1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

TONY HADDAD, 

 Plaintiff, Case No 2:09-cv-12597 

vs. Hon. David M. Lawson 

CHARLES RILEY & ASSOCIATES, INC., 

a Michigan corporation, and 

CHARLES RILEY, 

BRIGHTON MARKET, INC. 

a Michigan corporation, 

BLUE DIAMOND MARKET OF WARREN, INC. 

a Michigan corporation, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

GARY D. NITZKIN P41155 

NITZKIN & ASSOCIATES 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

22142 West Nine Mile Road 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 353-2882 

Fax (248) 353-4840 

Email – gnitzkin@creditor-law.com

 

ROBERT A. KUHR P31371 

ROBERT A. KUHR, PLLC 

Attorney for Charles Riley and Charles 

Riley and Associates 

P O Box 182062 

Shelby Township, MI 48318 

(586) 532-0520 

Fax (586) 532-0588 

Email – r_kuhr@hotmail.com

GORDON S. GOLD P14087 

SEYBURN KAHN et al 

Attorneys for Defendant Brighton Market, 

Inc. 

2000 Town Center 

Suite 1500 

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 353-7620 

Fax (248) 353-3727 

Email ggold@seyburn.com 

______________________________________ _______________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 

COURT’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST BLUE DIAMOND MARKET. 

 IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF STATES: 

1. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants, including Blue Diamond Market. 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 1 of 13
2

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Blue Diamond Market were based on its negligent 

and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

3. On September 9, 2009, the Clerk of the Court entered the default of Defendant 

Blue Diamond Market of Warren, Inc. 

4. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against 

Blue Diamond. 

5. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to the following damages: 

a. Emotional damages of $10,000 (Exhibit 1); 

b. Exemplary damages $10,000 under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; 

c. Costs - $507.50 (filing fee - $350.00, service of process $157.50); 

d. Attorneys’ fees - $4,637.50 (Exhibit 2) 

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grant him a judgment 

against Blue Diamond Market in the amount of $25,145.00. 

Respectfully submitted. 

September 15, 2009 /s/ Gary Nitzkin

GARY D. NITZKIN (P 41155) 

NITZKIN & ASSOCIATES 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

22142 West Nine Mile Road 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 353-2882 

Fax (248) 353-2882 

Email - gnitzkin@creditor-law.com

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 2 of 13
3

Proof of Service 

 I, Gary Nitzkin, hereby state that on _______________, I served a copy of the 

within pleading upon all counsel as their address appear of record via e-mail using the 

United States District Court’s CM/ECF system and a copy on Blue Diamond Market via 

first class mail. 

 /s/ Gary Nitzkin 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 3 of 13
4

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO COURT’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST BLUE DIAMOND 

MARKET 

FACTS 

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Charles Riley and Charles Riley and Associates 

(“CRA” and collectively “the Riley Defendants”), Blue Diamond Market of Warren, Inc. 

(“Blue Diamond”) and Brighton Market, Inc. (“Brighton”) for violation of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The 

Plaintiff’s claims arise from his perfect credit rating being tarnished by derogatory items 

being placed on his credit report by the Riley Defendants, on behalf of their clients, Blue 

Diamond and Brighton. Someone (the “Bad Actor”) holding himself out to have the 

same name as the Plaintiff, negotiated two checks; one with Blue Diamond and one with 

Brighton. When these checks were discovered to be forgeries or fraudulent, the Riley 

Defendants began collection proceedings against the Plaintiff. Further still, the Riley 

Defendants credit reported these debts on the Plaintiff’s consumer credit file with 

Experian. 

 Mr. Haddad, following the strictures of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, posited a 

consumer dispute to each trade line reported by the Riley Defendants on behalf of their 

clients, Blue Diamond and Brighton. All of the Defendants confirmed the trade lines as 

belonging to the Plaintiff 

 Mr. Haddad filed the within action and served all of the defendants with the 

complaint. Blue Diamond had failed to plead and/or otherwise defend against this action. 

On September 9, 2009, the clerk of the court entered the default of Blue Diamond. 

Plaintiff’s claims against Blue Diamond for both negligent and willful violation of the 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 4 of 13
5

Fair Credit Reporting Act have now been established in this case. Mr. Haddad is now 

entitled to a judgment on this default. 

PLAINTIFF IS ENTILTED TO EMOTIONAL DAMAGES AGAINST BLUE 

DIAMOND MARKET. 

 In this case, the Plaintiff has suffered no economic damages apart from the costs 

of this litigation and attorneys’ fees. However, Count IV of the Plaintiff’s complaint has 

accused Blue Diamond of willfully violating the FCBA. Now that Blue Diamond has 

defaulted in this action, its liability for Count IV is now established. 

 15 U.S.C. 1681n authorizes a court to award actual damages, punitive damages 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees when a furnisher of information to a consumer reporting 

agency willfully fails to comply with its duties under 1681s-2b. To be found in willful 

noncompliance, a defendant must have “knowingly and intentionally committed an act in 

conscious disregard for the rights of others. Stevenson v TRW, Inc. 987 F.2d 288, 293 

(1993). 

 15 U.S.C. 1681(o) authorizes a court to award actual damages sustained from a 

furnisher’s negligent violation of the FCRA. Actual damages include humiliation or 

mental distress, even if the consumer has suffered no out of pocket losses. Id. at 296. 

 In the case before this court, Mr. Haddad has maintained a perfect credit score 

ever since he was old enough to obtain credit. He worked hard at this endeavor and took 

pride in the fact that his credit was perfect and heretofore, unblemished. Mr. Haddad’s 

perfect credit score was assaulted by the Defendants, all without regard to the truth of the 

fact that he was neither the payee nor the negotiator of the checks at issue on his case. 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 5 of 13
6

 Under the statutory scheme of the FCRA, the Plaintiff was entitled to dispute the 

derogatory items reported by the defendants on the Plaintiff’s consumer credit file. Mr. 

Haddad posited his disputes. The Defendants were all then required to conduct 

investigations into Mr. Haddad’s dispute. Had anyone of them bothered to conduct even 

a remote reinvestigation into the debt, they would have discovered that Mr. Haddad was 

not the proper target of their collection efforts. The Defendants retained their derogatory 

trade lines on Mr. Haddad’s consumer credit file. The Defendants’ individual and 

collective refusal to remove these trade lines have caused Mr. Haddad untold grief and 

emotional anguish. He had avoided applying for credit anywhere because he did not 

want to be further humiliated by creditor grantors when faced with these bogus trade 

lines. Mr. Haddad should be awarded a minimum of $10,000 against Blue Diamond 

Market in emotional damages, for its willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

MR. HADDAD IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST BLUE 

DIAMOND MARKET FOR ITS WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT 

REPORTING ACT. 

 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(2) provides that anyone that fails to comply with their duties 

under the FCRA shall be liable for such punitive damages as the court may allow. In 

Jones v Credit Bureau of Huntington, Inc., 399 S.E.2d 694, 702 (1990), the court held in 

a FCRA action, it is not necessary for punitive damages to bear a reasonable relationship 

to actual damages. The Jones court held: 

In determining the proper amount of punitive damages to be assessed, the 

court must consider a variety of things: the remedial purpose of the Act, 

the harm to consumers intended to be avoided or corrected thereby, the 

manner in which the defendant conducted its business and dealt with the 

plaintiff, as well as the defendant's income and net worth. Id. 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 6 of 13
7

 In the case before this court, Blue Diamond defaulted and hence, Plaintiff has 

been unable to obtain any discovery from it. Hence, the parties are presently without 

knowledge as to Blue Diamond’s income and net worth. However, the court may still 

consider the remedial purpose of FCRA and the harm that it has caused to the Plaintiff by 

its failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation into Mr. Haddad’s claim after he 

brought to its attention, the fact that he was not the person who negotiated a check with it. 

The court should assess punitive damages against Blue Diamond as it simply did nothing; 

it conducting no reinvestigation and simply attempted to collect its debt using thug-like 

methods of its agents, the Riley Defendants. These methods included threatening Mr. 

Haddad with a court trial that would start “next week” when in fact, no lawsuit had even 

been filed. This court needs to send a message to all of these defendants that these 

violations of the FCRA will not be tolerated. Plaintiff seeks and should be awarded 

$10,000 in exemplary damages as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(2). 

PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF COSTS AND 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES. 

 Mr. Haddad has retained the legal services of Nitzkin and Associates. The lead 

attorney in this case, Gary Nitzkin, has an extensive background in credit and collection 

issues. Mr. Nitzkin, according to his affidavit, has been practicing law for about twenty 

years. Mr. Nitzkin’s usual and customary hourly rate is $265 per hour and has incurred 

17.5 hours thus far in pursuing this matter. He has attached his affidavit in support of the 

costs and attorneys’ fees to which Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement. 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 7 of 13
8

CONCLUSION 

 Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendant Blue Diamond Market in the 

amount of $25,145.00, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that this court grant him a judgment 

against Blue Diamond Market in the amount of $25,145.00. 

Respectfully submitted. 

September 15, 2009 /s/ Gary Nitzkin

GARY D. NITZKIN (P 41155) 

NITZKIN & ASSOCIATES 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

22142 West Nine Mile Road 

Southfield, MI 48034 

(248) 353-2882 

Fax (248) 353-2882 

Email - gnitzkin@creditor-law.com 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 8 of 13
1

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 9 of 13
AFFIDAIVIT OF TONY HADDAI)

State of Michigan )

lss

County of Macomb )

I, Tony Haddad, being duly sworn, hereby state that if called to testifu in this

action, would plead as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this case.

2. This case involves two trade lines that are being reported on my Experian

consumer credit file by Charles Riley and Associates ('CRA').

3. Each of these trade lines emanate from a check that was negotiated to Defendants

Blue Diamond Market and to Brighton Market. Each of these checks, upon

information and belief, bore my name as the payee.

4. I was never the payee of either of these checks.

5. I was never the negotiator of either of these checks.

6. These checks were first brought to my attention by Charles Riley and Charles

Riley and Associates.

7. I had a conversation with Charles Riley from Charles Riley and Associates during

which time, he informed me that he was the collection agent for both Blue

Diamond Market and Brighton Market. During that conversation, I informed

Riley that I was not the payee of those checks nor was I the person who had

negotiated these checks with his clients. Mr. Riley curtly told me "OK then, we

will just set it for trial next week, thank you."

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 10 of 13
8. When I learned that the defendants were reporting these trade lines to my

Experian consumer credit file, I posited a dispute with Experian.

9. Experian informed me that it, in turn, informed the furnishers of my dispute.

10. Experian subsequently advised me that the furnishers of the information,

including all of the defendants, "confirmed" the trade line as my responsibility.

11. I have maintained perfect credit ever since I was able to obtain credit.

12. The derogatory items placed on my credit report by the defendants have caused

me severe emotional distress. I have avoided applying for credit anywhere as I

did not want to be further embarrassed or humiliated by prospective credit

grantors.

13. I have lost sleep due to these derogatory items being placed on my credit report

by the defendants.

14. I have hired the Law Offices of Nitzkin and Associates to pursue my rights and to

clear my consumer credit files from these bogus trade lines as reported by all of

the defendants to this action.

15. I have incurred the fees of $4,637 .50 and costs of $507.50 as stated by Mr.

Nitzkin. in his affidavit.

Further Affiant Saith Not.

re^methis ,fort ot Se-p*,oabe1 2oo7

PAMELAL. DMKE

NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF OAKTAND

lfY COfrlMlSSlON EXPIRES APRIL 26. 2012

ACIING lN Oc.*Ia'-,"+-- iOUNW

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 11 of 13
4

EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 12 of 13
AFFIDAIVIT OF GARY NITZKIN
 

State of Michigan } 

}ss 

County of Oakland } 

I, Gary Nitzkin, being duly sworn, hereby state that if called to testify in this 

action, would plead as follows: 

1.	 I am counsel for Plaintiff in this case. 

2.	 I have been practicing law in the area of credit and collection for about twenty 

years. 

3.	 My usual and customary rate, on an hourly basis is $265.00. This has been my 

rate for at least the last five to seven years. 

4.	 An hourly rate of $265.00 is well within the average for hourly fees for doing this 

kind of work, especially someone with my extensive background and experience. 

5.	 I have incurred 17.5 hours to date in working on this matter on Mr. Haddad's 

behalf, or fees of$4,637.50. 

6.	 I have also incurred costs of $507.50 in pursuing this matter on behalf of Mr. 

Haddad. 

Further Affiant Saith Not. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this .tL day of¥, 2CV'1. 

16J,Ay 4, 4t-t.< . LNotary pUbl~{,o. Oi=-J<. 7~jCounty, MI 

My commission expires: 10 12-120 /2.. •	 I 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-12597-DML-MJH Document 13 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 13 of 13