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: 866-881-2133

Fax: 866-401-1457

david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Vicki Everts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VICKI EVERTS,

Plaintiffs, vs.

PMR PROGRESSIVE, LLC;

CORELOGIC CREDCO, 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. Vicki Everts (“Plaintiff”) brings this action to secure redress from PMR 

Progressive, LLC (“PMR”), CoreLogic Credco, LLC (“CoreLogic”), 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 credit report and in 

their illegal efforts to collect an alleged consumer debt from Plaintiff. 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Vicki Everts (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, PMR 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). In addition, Defendant PMR

engages in the practice of collecting debt as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).

PMR’s principle place of business is located in California. PMR regularly 

transacts business throughout the United States including Arizona. Defendant 

PMR can be served through its registered agent at 22801 Ventura Blvd., Suite 

204, Woodland Hills California 91364.

4. Defendant, CoreLogic is a reporting agency, as defined in 15 USC 1681a(f).

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. CoreLogic can be served through its registered agent Corporation 

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

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

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

1681a(f). 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.

6. On information and belief, Defendants CoreLogic and Experian disburse the 

consumer reports to third parties under contract for monetary compensation. 

7. 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

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

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

9. 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 

this District. Because Defendants transact business here, personal jurisdiction 

is established.

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

10. On March 31, 2009, Plaintiff and her husband Charles Everts filed Chapter 7 

Bankruptcy in the Central District of California: Case number 1:09-bk-13579.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. On September 29, 2009, Plaintiff and her husband received a discharge of 

their Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

12. The Bankruptcy resulted in no payments made to unsecured creditors and a 

complete discharge of all unsecured debts (see attached Exhibit A, discharge of 

debtor).

13. Defendant PMR was a debt collector who was listed in Plaintiffs Bankruptcy 

Schedule (see attached Exhibit B, Creditor Matrix).

14. In or around 2013, Plaintiffs adult daughter was killed, leaving four orphaned 

children. As a result, Plaintiff and her husband became legal guardians and 

caregivers for their four young grandchildren. 

15. Due to the unexpected loss of her daughter and her new found duty for her 

grandchildren, Plaintiff decided that it would be necessary to purchase a home.

16. In 2014 Plaintiff attempted to obtain a pre-approval to purchase a new home. 

17. Plaintiff learns that due to inaccurate reporting by PMR of a debt that was 

included in her 2009 bankruptcy, Plaintiff would be unable to obtain a 

mortgage. 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

18. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff submitted a dispute to Defendant Experian 

relating to the PMR account. 

19. Plaintiff explained that the PMR account was a debt that was discharged in her 

bankruptcy.

20. Experian failed to take any action based on Plaintiffs dispute and the debt 

remained on her credit report.

21. In or around May 2014, Plaintiff submits a written dispute to defendant 

CoreLogic wherein she explains that the debt from PMR had been discharged 

in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Plaintiff attached a copy of her discharge and 

notice of Bankruptcy filing to support her dispute that the debt was not valid.

22. In response to Plaintiffs dispute, on June 24 2014, CoreLogic provided 

Plaintiff with their reinvestigation results stating that they verified the reporting 

of the PMR debt through Experian.

23. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to conduct any meaningful 

investigation of Plaintiffs disputes.

24. As a result of Defendants failure to adequately investigate Plaintiffs dispute, 

Plaintiff was forced to pay defendant PMR $477.00 so that she could have her 

mortgage application approved (see attached Exhibit C, copy of cancelled 

check).

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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. The $477.00 paid to PMR was a debt that had been discharged in her 

Bankruptcy.

26. The collection efforts of PMR caused Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and 

mental anguish. 

27. The Defendants failure to accurately report the PMR debt caused Plaintiff 

extreme emotional distress and mental anguish.

Defendant PMR 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

29.The FCRA requires a furnisher such as PMR, after receiving notice from a 

credit reporting agency that a consumer disputes information that is being 

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. 

30. PMR has provided inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies.

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

31. Plaintiff notified Defendants CoreLogic and Experian that her report

concerning Defendant PMR was inaccurate. Thereafter, the credit reporting 

agencies notified Defendant PMR that Plaintiff was disputing the information it 

had furnished to the credit reporting agencies. 

32. Defendant PMR 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;

(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;

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

(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).

33. Defendant PMR’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. 

Defendant PMR

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

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

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

35. 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 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

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

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

36. From the date of January 2014 till on or around June 2015, Defendant PMR

continued to report a balance to all three major credit reporting agencies in an 

attempt to collect a debt from both Plaintiffs. 

37. Defendant PMR’s reporting of the balance was a false representation of 

amount and legal status of the debt. 

38. Defendant PMR’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. § 1692k. 

39. Defendant PMR violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2(a) by sending collection letters 

and calling Plaintiff demanding payment for a debt that was not owed.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendants CoreLogic and Experian 

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

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

41. 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).

42. 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 

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.” 

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

reinvestigation of the inaccuracy that the Plaintiff disputed. 

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

relevant information submitted by the Plaintiff. 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

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

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the Plaintiffs

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

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

Plaintiff has sustained damages.

47. 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:

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT 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

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 Vicki Everts

Case 2:15-cv-02023-JJT Document 1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 12 of 12