1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

COLTON BRAYTON, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, 

INC. D/B/A CREDIT 

COLLECTION SERVICES 

& 

NATIONAL ACCOUNT SYSTEMS 

OF OMAHA, LLC 

 

& 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION 

SERVICES, LLC 

& 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC. 

& 

TRANS UNION, LLC 

 

 Defendants. 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Colton Brayton, by and through the undersigned counsel, and for 

his Complaint against Defendants Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services 

(“CCS”), National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC (“NASO”), Equifax Information Services, LLC 

(“Equifax”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), and Trans Union, LLC (“TU”) (and 

together collectively, “Defendants”) for violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

) COMPLAINT

) 

) 

) 

) Case No: 4:23-cv-3077 

) 

) 

) 

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 1 of 24 - Page ID # 1
2 

U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) and for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1681 et seq. (“FCRA”), states as follows: 

JURISDICTION 

1. This court has jurisdiction of the federal claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 1681(p). 

2. Venue is proper because Plaintiff resides here, the acts and transactions occurred here, 

and CCS, NASO, Equifax, Experian, and TU transact business here. 

3. Under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(2) a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in 

which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 

4. Under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(d) when a defendant that is a corporation is subject to 

personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside 

in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal 

jurisdiction if that district were a separate state. 

5. Plaintiff resides in the city of Omaha, a part of Douglas County, Nebraska 68135. 

6. The acts that occurred giving rise to this complaint occurred while Plaintiff was in the 

city of Omaha, a part of Douglas County, Nebraska 68135, making the District of Nebraska a proper 

venue under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(2). 

7. Defendant CCS, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Norwood, MA, practices 

as a debt collector throughout the country, including Nebraska. 

8. Defendant NASO, a Nebraska corporation headquartered in Omaha, NE, practices as 

a debt collector throughout the country, including Nebraska. 

9. Defendants CCS and NASO attempt to collect alleged debts throughout the state of 

Nebraska, including in Omaha city and Douglas County. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 2 of 24 - Page ID # 2
3 

10. Defendants CCS and NASO have actual knowledge of where Plaintiff resided, and by 

attempting to collect from Plaintiff, purposefully availed themselves to the jurisdiction in which 

Plaintiff resided. 

11. Defendants CCS and NASO have sufficient minimum contacts with this venue as the 

alleged injuries caused to Plaintiff were caused while Plaintiff was in Omaha city and Douglas County 

and Defendants attempt to collect alleged debts throughout the state of Nebraska. 

12. Defendants CCS and NASO knowingly attempted to collect on debts allegedly 

incurred in Omaha, Nebraska and thus have sufficient minimum contacts with this venue is 

additionally proper under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(1). 

13. Defendant Equifax, a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta, GA, practices as 

a debt collector throughout the country, including Nebraska. 

14. Defendant Equifax serves as a credit reporting agency of consumer credit throughout 

the state of Nebraska, including in Omaha city and Douglas County. 

15. Defendant Equifax has actual knowledge of where Plaintiff resided, and by improperly 

reporting to Plaintiff’s credit and providing Plaintiff with such an update, Defendant Equifax 

purposefully availed itself to the jurisdiction in which Plaintiff resided. 

16. Defendant Equifax has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue as the alleged 

injuries caused to Plaintiff were caused while Plaintiff was in Omaha city and Douglas County and 

Defendant attempts to collect alleged debts throughout the state of Nebraska. 

17. Defendant Equifax knowingly reported information regarding a Plaintiff domiciled in 

Omaha, Nebraska and thus has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue, making venue 

additionally proper under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(1). 

18. Defendant Experian, a California corporation headquartered in Costa Mesa, CA, 

practices as a debt collector throughout the country, including Nebraska. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 3 of 24 - Page ID # 3
4 

19. Defendant Experian serves as a credit reporting agency of consumer credit throughout 

the state of Nebraska, including in Omaha city and Douglas County. 

20. Defendant Experian has actual knowledge of where Plaintiff resided, and by 

improperly reporting to Plaintiff’s credit and providing Plaintiff with such an update, Defendant 

Experian purposefully availed itself to the jurisdiction in which Plaintiff resided. 

21. Defendant Experian has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue as the alleged 

injuries caused to Plaintiff were caused while Plaintiff was in Omaha city and Douglas County and 

Defendant attempts to collect alleged debts throughout the state of Nebraska. 

22. Defendant Experian knowingly reported information regarding a Plaintiff domiciled 

in Omaha, Nebraska and thus has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue, making venue 

additionally proper under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(1). 

23. Defendant TU, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, IL, practices as a 

debt collector throughout the country, including Nebraska. 

24. Defendant TU serves as a credit reporting agency of consumer credit throughout the 

state of Nebraska, including in Omaha city and Douglas County. 

25. Defendant TU has actual knowledge of where Plaintiff resided, and by improperly 

reporting to Plaintiff’s credit and providing Plaintiff with such an update, Defendant TU purposefully 

availed itself to the jurisdiction in which Plaintiff resided. 

26. Defendant TU has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue as the alleged injuries 

caused to Plaintiff were caused while Plaintiff was in Omaha city and Douglas County and Defendant 

attempts to collect alleged debts throughout the state of Nebraska. 

27. Defendant TU knowingly reported information regarding a Plaintiff domiciled in 

Omaha, Nebraska and thus has sufficient minimum contacts with this venue, making venue 

additionally proper under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(1). 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 4 of 24 - Page ID # 4
5 

STANDING 

28. Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to receive all communications from a debt 

collector free from any misrepresentations and false threats. 

29. CCS and NASO’s collection activities violated the FDCPA. 

30. Defendants’ credit reporting and/or failure to properly dispute information violated 

the FCRA. 

31. Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendants’ conduct, giving rise to 

standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016), quoting Lujan v. 

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has the power to define injuries and 

articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.); 

Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Congress can create new substantive 

rights, such as a right to be free from misrepresentations, and if that right is invaded the holder of the 

right can sue without running afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no other injury[.]”). 

32. “Without the protections of the FDCPA, Congress determined, the ‘[e]xisting laws 

and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.’” Lane v. Bayview 

Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 15 C 10446, 2016 WL 3671467, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016)(quoting 15 

U.S.C. § 1692(b)). Thus, a failure to honor a consumer’s right under the FDCPA constitutes an injury 

in fact for Article III standing. See id. at *3 (holding that a consumer “has alleged a sufficiently 

concrete injury because he alleges that [Defendant] denied her the right to information due to her 

under the FDCPA.”); see also Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15-15708, 2016 WL 3611543, at 

*3 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016) (holding that consumer’s § 1692g claim was sufficiently concrete to satisfy 

injury-in-fact requirement). 

33. “[E]ven though actual monetary harm is a sufficient condition to show concrete harm, 

it is not a necessary condition.” Lane, 2016 WL 3671467 at *4. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 5 of 24 - Page ID # 5
6 

PARTIES

34. Plaintiff, Colton Brayton (hereafter “Plaintiff”), is a natural person currently residing 

in Douglas County, in the state of Nebraska. 

35. Plaintiff is a “consumer” within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

36. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c). 

37. Defendant CCS is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts, 

using mails and telephone, in this state with its principal address at 725 Canton Street, Norwood, MA 

02062. 

38. Defendant NASO is a Nebraska corporation engaged in the business of collecting 

debts, using mails and telephone, in this state with its principal address at 3738 S. 149th Street, Omaha, 

NE 68144. 

39. CCS and NASO are each engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the 

mails, telephone, and consumer collection agencies to collect consumer debts originally owed to 

others. 

40. CCS and NASO regularly collect or attempt to collect defaulted consumer debts due 

or asserted to be due another, and are each a “debt collector” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) of 

the FDCPA. 

41. Defendant Equifax is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located 

at 1550 Peachtree St. NE #H-46, Atlanta, GA 30309. 

42. Defendant Experian is a California corporation with its principal place of business 

located at 475 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 

43. Defendant TU is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located 

at 555 W. Adams Street, Chicago, IL 60661. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 6 of 24 - Page ID # 6
7 

44. Defendants CCS and NASO are each a “furnisher of information” as that term is 

defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b). 

45. Equifax, Experian, and TU are each a “consumer reporting agency that compiles and 

maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(p). Equifax, 

Experian, and TU regularly engage in the business of compiling and maintaining files on consumers 

on a nationwide basis for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties bearing on a 

consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity, each of the following regarding 

consumers residing nationwide: 

a. Public record information; 

b. Credit account information from persons who furnish that information regularly 

and in the ordinary course of business. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

46. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to be owed to 

creditors other than CCS and NASO. 

47. Upon information and belief, on a date better known by CCS, CCS began to attempt 

to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff. 

48. The alleged debt was said to be owed to All State. 

49. That this alleged debt would only have been incurred for a personal line of credit and 

would have been only for personal or family purposes. 

50. That this alleged account would have only been used for personal, family, or household 

purposes and would thus be a consumer debt. 

51. The reporting of the alleged debt contains an inaccurate balance. 

52. The reporting of the alleged debt contains an inaccurate status. 

53. The reporting of the alleged debt contains inaccurate delinquency information. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 7 of 24 - Page ID # 7
8 

54. The inaccurate reporting caused Plaintiff to be subjected to higher interest rates on 

lines of credit. 

55. That CCS was reporting the collection account on Plaintiff’s credit report with 

Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

56. That CCS was voluntarily reporting the alleged collection account on Plaintiff’s credit 

report with the credit reporting agencies. 

57. CCS’s voluntary reporting to the credit reporting agencies is a “communication” under 

the FDCPA in connection with the collection of an alleged debt. 

58. On or about 03/15/2022, Plaintiff sent dispute letters to Equifax, Experian, and TU 

notifying the account with CCS as disputed. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. 

59. These letters provided notice of the inaccurate reporting to Equifax, Experian, and 

TU. 

60. Once Equifax, Experian, and TU received notice of these letters, they were required 

to provide notice of such disputes and request for re-investigation to the furnisher, in this case CCS. 

61. Upon information and belief, Equifax, Experian, and TU received the letters sent by 

Plaintiff. 

62. Upon information and belief, Equifax, Experian, and TU transmitted notice of these 

disputes to CCS via an Automated Credit Dispute Verification form (“ACDV”). 

63. CCS was required to investigate Plaintiff’s dispute in full upon receipt of the ACDV, 

and by extension, notice of the inaccuracy. 

64. Alternatively, Equifax, Experian, and TU failed to send notice of the disputes to CCS 

after receiving notice of the disputes from Plaintiff. 

65. After receiving this notice, in any subsequent voluntary reporting, CCS must then 

include the dispute notation on said account. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 8 of 24 - Page ID # 8
9 

66. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from Equifax. 

Exhibit D.

67. That the credit report was updated on 05/01/2022 by CCS. 

68. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by Equifax, and transmitted to 

CCS. 

69. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by Equifax after 

Equifax failed to notify CCS. 

70. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from Experian. 

Exhibit D.

71. That the credit report was updated on 05/13/2022 by CCS. 

72. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by Experian, and transmitted to 

CCS. 

73. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by Experian after 

Experian failed to notify CCS. 

74. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from TU. Exhibit 

D.

75. That the credit report was updated on 05/06/2022 by CCS. 

76. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by TU, and transmitted to CCS. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 9 of 24 - Page ID # 9
10 

77. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by TU after TU failed 

to notify CCS. 

78. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated marked as 

disputed information. 

79. Upon information and belief, the updated 05/16/2022 credit report contained 

inaccurate information. 

80. CCS failed to investigate or otherwise verify Plaintiff’s dispute before voluntarily rereporting the alleged debt. 

81. CCS must have voluntarily updated the Plaintiff’s alleged account by communicating 

with Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

82. That CCS furnished information to Equifax, Experian, and TU regarding Plaintiff’s 

account without notifying them the account had been disputed by consumer, even after receiving 

notice by Equifax, Experian, and TU of the disputes. 

83. That CCS failed to update the account information and mark the account as disputed 

on the updated 05/16/2022 credit report after Plaintiff disputed the account on 03/15/2022 and was 

given notice of such by Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

84. In the alternative, if CCS properly updated the account information and marked the 

account as disputed with Equifax, Experian, and TU after receiving notification of disputes from 

Plaintiff, then Equifax, Experian, and TU failed to update the account information and mark the 

account as disputed on the updated 05/16/2022 credit report. 

85. Upon information and belief, that CCS never properly updated the account 

information or marked the account as disputed even after receiving information of the disputes from 

Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 10 of 24 - Page ID # 10
11 

86. Alternatively, Equifax, Experian, and TU never updated the account information and 

marked the account as disputed even after receiving information of the dispute remark from CCS in 

its subsequent voluntary reporting or via a response to an Automated Credit Dispute Verification 

(“ACDV”) request. 

87. Upon information and belief, on a date better known by NASO, NASO began to 

attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff. 

88. The alleged debt was said to be owed to Omaha Health Clinic. 

89. That this alleged debt would only have been incurred for a personal line of credit and 

would have been only for personal or family purposes. 

90. That this alleged account would have only been used for personal, family, or household 

purposes and would thus be a consumer debt. 

91. The reporting of the alleged debt contains an inaccurate balance. 

92. The reporting of the alleged debt contains an inaccurate status. 

93. The reporting of the alleged debt contains inaccurate delinquency information. 

94. The inaccurate reporting caused Plaintiff to be subjected to higher interest rates on 

lines of credit. 

95. That NASO was reporting the collection account on Plaintiff’s credit report with 

Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

96. That NASO was voluntarily reporting the alleged collection account on Plaintiff’s 

credit report with the credit reporting agencies. 

97. NASO’s voluntary reporting to the credit reporting agencies is a “communication” 

under the FDCPA in connection with the collection of an alleged debt. 

98. On or about 03/15/2022, Plaintiff sent dispute letters to Equifax, Experian, and TU 

notifying the account with NASO as disputed. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 11 of 24 - Page ID # 11
12 

99. These letters provided notice of the inaccurate reporting to Equifax, Experian, and 

TU. 

100. Once Equifax, Experian, and TU received notice of these letters, they were required 

to provide notice of such disputes and request for re-investigation to the furnisher, in this case NASO. 

101. Upon information and belief, Equifax, Experian, and TU received the letters sent by 

Plaintiff. 

102. Upon information and belief, Equifax, Experian, and TU transmitted notice of these 

disputes to NASO via an Automated Credit Dispute Verification form (“ACDV”). 

103. NASO was required to investigate Plaintiff’s dispute in full upon receipt of the ACDV, 

and by extension, notice of the inaccuracy. 

104. Alternatively, Equifax, Experian, and TU failed to send notice of the disputes to 

NASO after receiving notice of the disputes from Plaintiff. 

105. After receiving this notice, in any subsequent voluntary reporting, NASO must then 

include the dispute notation on said account. 

106. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from Equifax. 

Exhibit D.

107. That the credit report was updated on 05/01/2022 by NASO. 

108. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by Equifax, and transmitted to 

NASO. 

109. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by Equifax after 

Equifax failed to notify NASO. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 12 of 24 - Page ID # 12
13 

110. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from Experian. 

Exhibit D.

111. That the credit report was updated on 05/06/2022 by NASO. 

112. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by Experian, and transmitted to 

NASO. 

113. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by Experian after 

Experian failed to notify NASO. 

114. On or about 05/16/2022, Plaintiff received an updated credit file from TU. Exhibit 

D.

115. That the credit report was updated on 05/06/2022 by NASO. 

116. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated account 

information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff, received by TU, and transmitted to NASO. 

117. Alternatively, that the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated 

account information even after such dispute was sent by Plaintiff and received by TU after TU failed 

to notify NASO. 

118. That the updated 05/16/2022 credit report did not contain updated marked as 

disputed information. 

119. Upon information and belief, the updated 05/16/2022 credit report contained 

inaccurate information. 

120. NASO failed to investigate or otherwise verify Plaintiff’s dispute before voluntarily rereporting the alleged debt. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 13 of 24 - Page ID # 13
14 

121. NASO must have voluntarily updated the Plaintiff’s alleged account by 

communicating with Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

122. That NASO furnished information to Equifax, Experian, and TU regarding Plaintiff’s 

account without notifying them the account had been disputed by consumer, even after receiving 

notice by Equifax, Experian, and TU of the disputes. 

123. That NASO failed to update the account information and mark the account as 

disputed on the updated 05/16/2022 credit report after Plaintiff disputed the account on 03/15/2022 

and was given notice of such by Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

124. In the alternative, if NASO properly updated the account information and marked the 

account as disputed with Equifax, Experian, and TU after receiving notification of disputes from 

Plaintiff, then Equifax, Experian, and TU failed to update the account information and mark the 

account as disputed on the updated 05/16/2022 credit report. 

125. Upon information and belief, that NASO never properly updated the account 

information or marked the account as disputed even after receiving information of the disputes from 

Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

126. Alternatively, Equifax, Experian, and TU never updated the account information and 

marked the account as disputed even after receiving information of the dispute remark from NASO 

in its subsequent voluntary reporting or via a response to an Automated Credit Dispute Verification 

(“ACDV”) request. 

127. All of CCS and NASO’s actions under the FDCPA complained of herein occurred 

within one year of the date of this Complaint. 

128. All of Defendants’ actions under the FCRA complained of herein occurred within two 

years of the date of this Complaint. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 14 of 24 - Page ID # 14
15 

129. Plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact by being subjected to inaccurate, unfair, and abusive 

practices of the CCS, NASO, and/or Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

130. Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of inaccurate credit reporting and/or 

misleading debt collection communications by CCS, NASO, and/or Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

131. Plaintiff has suffered actual harm due to credit denials caused by false credit reporting 

by CCS, NASO, and/or Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

132. Plaintiff has suffered actual harm based on his costs and time of repairing his credit, 

pain and suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, lost economic opportunity, loss of incidental time, 

frustration, emotional distress, mental anguish, fear of personal and financial safety and security, and 

attorney’s fees. 

133. Plaintiff’s injury-in-fact is fairly traceable to the challenged representations of CCS, 

NASO, and/or Equifax, Experian, and TU. 

134. Plaintiff’s injury-in-fact is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in this Court. 

Count I: Violations Of § 1692e Of The FDCPA – False, Deceptive, Or Misleading Collection 

Actions 

135. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

136. Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, 

or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

137. That because Plaintiff disputed the debt, CCS and NASO, when choosing to contact 

the consumer reporting agencies, were obligated to inform them of the disputed status of the accounts. 

See Dixon v. RJM Acquisitions, L.L.C., 640 Fed. Appx. 793 (10th Cir. 2016) (Reversed summary 

judgment to the collection agency on the consumer’s § 1692e(8) claim that after she had disputed a 

debt, the agency had nevertheless reported the debt without disclosing the disputed. The consumer 

created a genuine fact issue given that she said during the recorded conversation: “I feel that all I owe 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 15 of 24 - Page ID # 15
16 

is $20.” A reasonable fact finder could treat the statement as a dispute of the alleged $102.99 debt.); 

Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc., 711 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2013) “(We agree with the Eighth 

Circuit’s interpretation of § 1692e(8) that a debt collector does not have an affirmative duty to notify 

[credit reporting agencies] that a consumer disputes the debt unless the debt collector knows of the 

dispute and elects to report to a CRA.”) 

138. CCS and NASO used deceptive and misleading tactics when it communicated personal 

credit information which was known or which should have been known to be false, including the 

failure to communicate the debts were disputed in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(8). See Sayles 

v. Advanced Recovery Systems, Incorporated, 865 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 2017); Brady v. Credit 

Recovery Co., 160 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 1998) (The plain language of the FDCPA requires debt collectors 

to communicate the disputed status of a debt if the debt collector knows or should know that the debt 

is disputed. This standard requires no notification by the consumer but depends on the debt collector’s 

knowledge that a debt is disputed, regardless of how or when that knowledge is required.) 

139. CCS and NASO’s collection communications are to be interpreted under the “least 

sophisticated consumer” standard. See, Goswami v. Am. Collections Enter., Inc., 377 F.3d 488, 495 

(5th Cir. 2004); Taylor v. Perrin, Landry, deLaunay & Durand, 103 F.3d 1232, 1236 (5th Cir.1997) 

(When deciding whether a debt collection letter violates the FDCPA, this court “must evaluate any 

potential deception in the letter under an unsophisticated or least sophisticated consumer standard.) 

See Also, Goswami, 377 F.3d at 495. (We must “assume that the plaintiff-debtor is neither shrewd 

nor experienced in dealing with creditors.”) 

140. CCS and NASO violated the Plaintiff’s right not to be the target of misleading debt 

collection communications. 

141. CCS and NASO violated the Plaintiff’s right to a truthful and fair debt collection 

process. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 16 of 24 - Page ID # 16
17 

142. CCS and NASO’s communications with Plaintiff were deceptive and misleading. 

143. CCS and NASO used unfair and unconscionable means to attempt to collect the 

alleged debt. 

144. CCS and NASO’s communications were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a 

harmful disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to CCS and NASO’s collection efforts. 

145. CCS and NASO’s failure to mark debts as disputed they know or should know are 

disputed violates § 1692e, 1692e(8) of the FDCPA. 

146. CCS and NASO’s conduct has caused Plaintiff to suffer damages including but not 

limited to a damaged credit score, the loss of time incurred by Plaintiff, and attorneys’ fees paid for 

advice regarding his situation. 

147. Congress has found that “[a]busive debt collection practices contribute to the number 

of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual 

privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). 

148. Here, Plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact in at least one of the manners 

contemplated by Congress when it passed the FDCPA because of CCS and NASO’s conduct. 

149. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and 

of their rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and participate 

fully and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The purpose of the FDCPA is to provide 

information that helps consumers to choose intelligently. CCS and NASO’s false representations 

misled the Plaintiff in a manner that deprived him of his right to enjoy these benefits; these materially 

misleading statements trigger liability under section 1692e of the Act. 

150. Plaintiff seeks to end these violations of the FDCPA. Plaintiff has suffered actual 

damages including but not limited to, fear, stress, mental anguish, emotional stress and acute 

embarrassment. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 17 of 24 - Page ID # 17
18 

151. Defendants CCS and NASO’s violation of § 1692e of the FDCPA renders them liable 

for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton, prays that this Court: 

A. Declare that CCS and NASO’s debt collection actions violate the FDCPA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against CCS and 

NASO for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 

§ 1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and 

C. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

Count II: Violations Of § 1692d Of The FDCPA – Harassment or Abuse 

152. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

153. Section 1692d prohibits any debt collector from engaging in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of 

a debt. 

154. CCS and NASO’s communications with Plaintiff were meant to shame, embarrass, 

and harass Plaintiff by misrepresenting the alleged debts status. 

155. CCS and NASO attempted to coerce Plaintiff into paying alleged debts his otherwise 

would not have paid by submitting false and inaccurate information to his credit report. 

156. CCS and NASO could have no other purpose in doing this except to harm Plaintiff’s 

reputation and deprive him of his ability to receive any type of credit line unless he paid the alleged 

debts. 

157. Defendants CCS and NASO’s violation of § 1692d of the FDCPA render them liable 

for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 18 of 24 - Page ID # 18
19 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton, prays that this Court: 

A. Declare that CCS and NASO’s debt collection actions violate the FDCPA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against CCS and 

NASO for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 

§ 1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and 

C. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

COUNT III: Violations Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA – Misleading Representations & Unfair 

Practices 

158. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

159. Section 1692f prohibits the use of unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. 

160. CCS and NASO attempted to collect debts by distributing false information that 

would negatively impact Plaintiff’s rights as a consumer, as well as that would harm Plaintiff’s financial 

health. 

161. CCS and NASO used unfair and unconscionable means to attempt to collect the 

alleged debts. 

162. CCS and NASO’s violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA render them liable for actual 

and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton, prays that this Court: 

A. Declare that CCS and NASO’s debt collection actions violate the FDCPA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against CCS and 

NASO, for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 

§ 1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 19 of 24 - Page ID # 19
20 

C. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

Count IV: Violation Of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) of the FCRA-Reinvestigations of 

Disputed Information 

163. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

164. Equifax, Experian, and TU violated 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to 

follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the credit 

report and credit files they published and maintain concerning the Plaintiff. 

165. As a result of this conduct, action and inaction of Equifax, Experian, and TU the 

Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit, loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from a credit, 

the mental and emotional pain and anguish and the humiliation and embarrassment of credit denials. 

166. Equifax, Experian, and TU’s conduct, action, and inaction were willful, rendering them 

liable for punitive damages in the amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1681n. In the alternative, they were negligent, entitling the Plaintiff to recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 

1681o. 

167. The Plaintiff is entitled to recovery costs and attorney’s fees from Equifax, Experian, 

and TU in the amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton, prays that this Court: 

A. Declare that Equifax, Experian, and TU’s credit reporting actions violate the 

FCRA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against Equifax, 

Experian, and TU, for actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

as provided by §1681n of the FCRA; 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 20 of 24 - Page ID # 20
21 

C. Or, in the alternative, enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and 

against Equifax, Experian, and TU, for actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

as provided by §1681o of the FCRA; and 

D. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

Count V: Violation Of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i of the FCRA-Reinvestigations of Disputed 

Information 

168. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

169. Defendant Equifax, Experian, and TU violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i on multiple 

occasions by failing to delete inaccurate information in the Plaintiff’s credit file after receiving actual 

notice of such inaccuracies; by failing to conduct a lawful reinvestigation; by failing to forward all 

relevant information to CCS and NASO; by failing to maintain reasonable procedures with which to 

filter and verify disputed information in the plaintiff’s credit file; and by relying upon verification from 

a source it has reason to know is unreliable. 

170. As a result of this conduct, action and inaction of Equifax, Experian, and TU, the 

Plaintiff suffered damage by loss of credit, loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from credit, and 

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

171. Equifax, Experian, and TU’s conduct, action and inaction were willful, rendering them 

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

Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. In the alternative, they were negligent entitling the Plaintiff to 

recovery actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. 

172. The Plaintiff is entitled to recovery costs and attorney’s fees from Equifax, Experian, 

and TU in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton prays that this Court: 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 21 of 24 - Page ID # 21
22 

A. Declare that Equifax, Experian, and TU’s credit reporting actions violate the 

FCRA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against Equifax, 

Experian, and TU, for actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

as provided by §1681n of the FCRA; 

C. Or, in the alternative, enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and 

against Equifax, Experian, and TU, for actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

as provided by §1681o of the FCRA; and 

D. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

Count VI: Violation Of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B) of the FCRA- Duties of Furnishers of 

Information upon Notice of Dispute 

173. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Petition as if fully stated 

herein. 

174. Defendants CCS and NASO violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by continuing to report 

the CCS and NASO representations within Plaintiff’s credit file with Equifax, Experian, and TU 

without also including a notation that this debt was disputed; by failing to fully and properly investigate 

the Plaintiff’s dispute of the CCS and NASO representations; by failing to review all relevant 

information regarding same; by failing to accurately respond to CCS and NASO; by failing to correctly 

report results of an accurate investigation to every other credit reporting agency; and by failing to 

permanently and lawfully correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of the CCS and 

NASO representations to the consumer reporting agencies. 

175. As a result of this conduct, action and inaction of CCS and NASO, the Plaintiff 

suffered damage by loss of credit; loss of the ability to purchase and benefit from credit; and the 

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

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 22 of 24 - Page ID # 22
23 

176. Defendants CCS and NASO’s conduct, action and inaction were willful, rendering 

them liable for actual or statutory, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. In the alternative, it was negligent entitling the Plaintiff to recover 

actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. 

177. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees from CCS and NASO in an 

amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Colton Brayton, prays that this Court: 

A. Declare that CCS and NASO’s credit reporting actions violate the FCRA; 

B. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and against CCS and 

NASO for actual damages, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided 

by §1681n of the FCRA; 

C. Or, in the alternative, enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colton Brayton, and 

against CCS and NASO, for actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided 

by §1681o of the FCRA; and 

D. Grant other such further relief as deemed just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

178. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all Counts so triable. 

Dated: April 27, 2023 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 23 of 24 - Page ID # 23
24 

Respectfully Submitted, 

HALVORSEN KLOTE

 By: /s/ Joel Halvorsen 

 Joel S. Halvorsen, #67032 

 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 

St. Louis, MO 63141 

P: (314) 451-1314 

F: (314) 787-4323 

joel@hklawstl.com 

 

4:23-cv-03077-JMG-CRZ Doc # 1 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 24 of 24 - Page ID # 24