COMPLAINT 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

29

30

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

David A. Chami, AZ #027585

1204 E Baseline Rd., Suite 102

Tempe, AZ 85283

P: 818-907-2133

Fax: 866-401-1457

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Josh Perry 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOSH N. PERRY,

Plaintiffs, vs.

I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.;

TRANS UNION LLC; and EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.

Defendants.

Case No.:

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL FOR VIOLATIONS 

OF:

1. THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING 

ACT [15 USC § 1681 et. seq.]; 

2. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT [15 USC 1692 et. 

seq.]

INTRODUCTION

1. Josh N. Perry (“Plaintiff”) brings this action to secure redress from I.Q. Data 

International Inc. (“IQ Data”), Trans Union LLC (“TransUnion”), and 

Experian Information Solutions Inc. (“Experian”) (herein collectively as 

“Defendants”) for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., and their agents for their illegal reporting on Plaintiffs 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

credit report and in their illegal efforts to collect an alleged consumer debt 

from Plaintiff. 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Josh N. Perry (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a consumer, a natural person 

allegedly obligated to pay a debt, and a citizen of the United States of America 

who presently resides in Maricopa County, Arizona.

3. Defendant, IQ Data is a debt collection agency as defined in 15 U.S.C. 

1692a(6). IQ Data’s domicile is located in Everett, Washington and regularly 

transacts business throughout the United States including Arizona. Defendant 

IQ Data can be served through its registered agent Corporation Service 

Company located at 2338 W Royal Palm Rd., Suite-J, Phoenix Arizona 85021.

4. In addition, Defendant engages in the practice of furnishing consumer 

information to consumer reporting agencies, and is therefore a “furnisher of 

information” as contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) & (b). 

5. Defendant, TransUnion is a credit reporting agency, as defined in 15 USC 

1681a(f) and RCW 19.182.010(5). On information and belief, Defendant is 

regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing 

information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer 

reports, as defined in 15 USC 1681a(d), to third parties. Trans Union can be 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

served through its registered agent Prentice-Hall Corp System located at 2338 

W Royal Palm Rd., Suite-J, Phoenix Arizona 85021.

6. Defendant, Experian is a credit reporting agency, as defined in 15 USC 

1681a(f) and RCW 19.182.010(5). On information and belief, Defendant is 

regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing 

information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer 

reports, as defined in 15 USC 1681a(d), to third parties. Experian can be 

served through its registered agent CT Corporation System located at 3800 N 

Central Ave., Suite 460, Phoenix Arizona 85012.

7. On information and belief, Defendants TransUnion and Experian disburse the 

consumer reports to third parties under contract for monetary compensation. 

8. At all relevant times, Defendants acted through duly authorized agents, 

employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, 

trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers.

JURISDICTION

9. The District Court has federal question jurisdiction over these claims pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. 1681.

10.Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in that a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

this District. Because Defendants transact business here, personal jurisdiction 

is established.

11. In or around March 2013, a judgment was entered against Plaintiff related to a 

forcible detainer action regarding a rental property dispute for the benefit of 

Hidden Cove Apartments. The amount of the judgment was for $1,408.08.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. In 2014, Plaintiff learned of collection activity by IQ Data. IQ Data was 

attempting to collect on the Hidden Cove debt; however IQ Data indicated that 

the amount of the debt was over $3,500. IQ Data indicated that they were the 

assignee of Hidden Cover and the rightful owners of the debt. In numerous 

conversations with Plaintiff and subsequently with his former attorney Ryan 

Alcorn.

13.In or around December 2014, Plaintiff paid $1510.67 to IQ Data with an 

agreement that they would report the debt as paid in full and file a Satisfaction 

of Judgment with the Court.

14. After months IQ Data failed to file a Satisfaction of Judgment and continued 

to report the over $3500.00 balance on Plaintiff’s credit report. 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

15. Finally in May 2015, Plaintiff learned, from Hidden Cove Apartments, that IQ 

Data was not the owner of the debt and had no legal authority to file a 

Satisfaction of Judgment.

16. In May 2015, Plaintiff disputed the charge with his bank and received a 

refund of the $1510.67 previously paid to IQ Data. 

17. On June 5, 2015, Hidden Cove Apartments assigned the judgment, for the 

first time, to IQ Data (See attached Exhibit A, assignment). 

18. Plaintiff was not informed of the assignment. 

19. On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff, through Counsel, paid $1408.08 to Hidden Cove

Apartment through their Property Manager, Rosebud LLC (see attached 

Exhibit B, copy of cancelled check).

20. Upon acceptance of said payment, Hidden Cove Apartments was to file a 

Satisfaction of Judgment with the Court. 

21. The Satisfaction of Judgment was filed by Hidden Cove on August 21, 2015.

22. In or around July 2015, Plaintiff applied for a mortgage with People’s 

Mortgage Company. 

23. On July 15, 2015 that mortgage application was denied, based in whole or in 

part, on the collection account related to the IQ Data activities. 

24. Upon receiving the credit denial, Plaintiff became distraught.

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

25. On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff mailed dispute letters to Experian, Equifax and 

Trans Union disputing the IQ Data account.

26. On August 24, 2015, Experian responded to Plaintiffs dispute and refused to 

remove the inaccurate reported information.

27. On August 25, 2015 Equifax responded to Plaintiffs dispute and agreed to 

delete the inaccurately reported IQ Data account (See attached Exhibit C,

Response from Equifax).

28. On August 28, 2015 Trans Union responded to Plaintiffs dispute refusing to 

remove the inaccurately reported IQ Data account. 

29. As a result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered extreme 

emotional distress and mental anguish. 

30. In addition Plaintiff has been unable to fulfill his dream of becoming a 

homeowner. 

Defendant IQ Data

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq.

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

32. The FCRA requires a furnisher such as IQ Data, after receiving notice from a 

credit reporting agency that a consumer disputes information that is being 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 6 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

reported by that furnisher, to conduct an investigation with respect to the 

disputed information, to review all relevant information, to report the results of 

the investigation to the credit reporting agency, and, if the investigation reveals 

that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, to report those results to all 

other credit reporting agencies to which the furnisher has provided the 

inaccurate information. 

33. IQ Data has provided inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies.

34. Plaintiff notified Defendants TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax that his 

report concerning Defendant IQ Data was inaccurate. Thereafter, the credit 

reporting agencies notified Defendant IQ Data that Plaintiff was disputing the 

information it had furnished to the credit reporting agencies. 

35. Defendant IQ Data violated sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA by 

engaging in the following conduct that violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), (b):

(a) Willfully and negligently failing to conduct an investigation of the 

inaccurate information that Plaintiffs disputed;

(b) Willfully and negligently failing to review all relevant information 

concerning Plaintiffs mortgage;

(c) Willfully and negligently failing to report the results of investigations 

to the relevant consumer reporting agencies;

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 7 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

(d) Willfully and negligently failing to report the inaccurate status of the 

inaccurate information to all credit reporting agencies;

(e) Willfully and negligently failing to properly participate, investigate 

and comply with the reinvestigations that were conducted by any and 

all credit reporting agencies concerning the inaccurate information 

disputed by Plaintiffs;

(f) Willfully and negligently continuing to furnish and disseminate 

inaccurate and derogatory credit, account and other information 

concerning both Plaintiffs to the credit reporting agencies; and

(g) Willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements 

imposed on furnishers of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(a), (b).

36.Defendant IQ Data’s conduct was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a 

substantial factor, in causing serious injuries, damages and harm to Plaintiff

that are outlined more fully above, and as a result, Defendant is liable to 

compensate Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive 

damages, along with attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as other such relief, 

permitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 8 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

Defendant IQ Data

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692 et. seq.

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

38. The FDCPA provides that a “debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, 

or misleading representation or means with the collection of any debt.” 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e. Furthermore, a debt collector will be found in violation if the 

following conduct is determined: a false representation of “the character, 

amount, or legal status of any debt” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(a). 

39. From in or around January 2014, Defendant IQ Data continued to report an 

incorrect balance of over $3,500 to all three major credit reporting agencies in 

an attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. 

40. Defendant IQ Data’s reporting of the balance was a false representation of 

amount and legal status of the debt. 

41. Defendant IQ Data’s conduct was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a 

substantial factor, in causing serious injuries, damages and harm to Plaintiff 

that are outlined more fully above, and as a result, Defendant is liable to 

compensate Plaintiff for the full amount of statutory, actual and punitive 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 9 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

damages, along with attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as other such relief, 

permitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. 

42. Defendant IQ Data violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2(a) by demanding payment for 

a debt that was not owed.

Defendants TransUnion and Experian 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq.

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

44. The FCRA provides that if the completeness or accuracy of any item of 

information contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is 

disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such 

dispute, the agency shall conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine 

whether the disputed information is inaccurate, or delete the item from the file 

within thirty (30) days of receiving the consumer’s dispute notice. 15 U.S.C. § 

1681i(a)(2)(A).

45. The Act further requires the credit reporting agency, within 5 business days of 

receiving notice of the consumer’s dispute, to provide notification of the 

dispute to the person who furnished the information in dispute and requires the 

credit reporting agency to “include all relevant information regarding the 

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 10 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

dispute that the agency received from the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 

1681i(a)(2)(A). In conducting its reinvestigation of disputed information in a 

consumer report, the credit-reporting agency is required to “review and 

consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer.” 

46. The Defendants, credit-reporting agencies, failed to conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation of the inaccuracy that the Plaintiff disputed. 

47. The Defendants, credit-reporting agencies, failed to review and consider all 

relevant information submitted by the Plaintiff. 

48. The Defendants, credit reporting agencies, failed to employ and follow 

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiffs credit 

report, information, and file, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

49. As a result of the above-described violations of § 1681i and § 1681e(b), 

Plaintiff has sustained damages.

50. The Defendants, credit-reporting agencies, violations of the FCRA were 

willful and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to seek statutory and punitive 

damages. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered 

against Defendant for the following:

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 11 of 12
COMPLAINT 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

29

30

A. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o and 1692k(1);

B. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(2)(a);

C. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 

1681o and 1692k(3);

D. Any pre-judgment and post judgment interest as may be allowed under the 

law; and

E. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Please take notice that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

DATED this 8th

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

day of October, 2015,

By: 

David A. Chami

/s/David A. Chami ’ 

Attorney for Plaintiff Josh N Perry

Case 2:15-cv-02024-DJH Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 12 of 12