1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Hyung S. Choi, State Bar 015669

Veronika Fabian, State Bar 018770

CHOI & FABIAN, PLC

90 S. Kyrene Rd., Suite #5

Chandler, Arizona 85226

tel: (480) 517-1400

fax: (480) 517-6955

Flagstaff: (928) 779-2226

veronika@choianfabian.com

 Attorneys for Christina Cohen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christina Cohen f/k/a Christina

Gatewood,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, Inc.,

Equifax Information Services, LLC, 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,

Defendants.

 NO. 

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 19, 2014, Plaintiff’s student loan accounts were discharged in her

Chapter 7 bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). Yet, Defendants continue

to report account balances and on-going late payment history on the discharged

accounts. Plaintiff’s four disputes to Experian did not fix the problem. Three

disputes to Equifax did not fix the problem. A dispute sent directly to Navient

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

also did not solve the problem. Plaintiff brings this case to remedy Defendants’

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Christina Cohen formerly known as Christina Gatewood (“Christina”) is

a natural person and a resident of Tucson, Pima County, Arizona.

4. Christina is a “consumer” as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c). 

5. Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. (“Sallie Mae”), is a publically traded Delaware

corporation self-proclaimed as “the nation’s No. 1 financial service company

specializing in education.”

6. Sallie Mae is a furnisher of information to consumer reporting agencies

contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 that regularly and in the ordinary course of

business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies

bureaus about consumer transactions or experiences with any consumer. 

7. Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. (“Navient”), is a publically traded

Massachusetts corporation.

8. Navient is a furnisher of information to consumer reporting agencies

contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 that regularly and in the ordinary course of

business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies

bureaus about consumer transactions or experiences with any consumer. 

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3

9. Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) is a Georgia limited

liability company licensed to do business in the state of Arizona.

10. Equifax is a consumer reporting agency as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f)

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

information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer

reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), to third parties.

11. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) is an Ohio

corporation licensed to do business in the state of Arizona.

12. Experian is a consumer reporting agency as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f)

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

information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer

reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), to third parties.

FACTS

Christina

13. Christina is a double major (accounting and finance) graduate of the University of

Southern California.

14. While attending the university, Christina incurred substantial student loan debt.

15. Christina obtained a job in her chosen profession. 

16. Unfortunately, Christina sustained debilitating injuries and became disabled.

17. Christina was unable to work and had to file for bankruptcy.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

4

Christina’s Student Loans Were Discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

18. On August 19, 2014, Christina and Navient entered into a stipulation for

educational loan debt discharge for the following student loans:

a. one (1) Signature Student Loan disbursed September 28, 2005, with a

balance, including principal, interest and fees, totaling $7,255.14; 

b. one (1) Signature Student Loan disbursed December 20, 2005, with a

balance, including principal, interest and fees, totaling $4,396.86; and 

c. one (1) Signature Student Loan disbursed March 8, 2006, with a balance,

including principal, interest and fees, totaling $6,854.40. 

(Exhibit A: Amended Stipulation for Discharge of Educational Loan Debt

Between Plaintiff and Navient Solutions, Inc. and for a Dismissal of Sallie Mae

PC Credit Student Loan Trust as a Defendant in this Adversary Proceeding, In re

Gatewood, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of

California, Case No. 09-40953-RLE-7). These loans are referred to hereafter as

“the discharged student loan accounts.” 

19. The discharged student loan accounts were held by Sallie Mae PC Credit Student

Loan Trust, which was being administered by Navient Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Sallie

Mae, Inc.

20. Navient had full authority to administer the Trust and all loans held therein,

including making determinations related to the dischargeability of the discharged

student loan accounts. 

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

5

21. On August 19, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Roger L. Efremsky

signed the Order Approving Amended Stipulation for Discharge of Educational

Loan Debt Between Plaintiff and Navient Solutions, Inc. and for a Dismissal of

Sallie Mae PC Credit Student Loan Trust as a Defendant in the Adversary

Proceeding. (Exhibit B).

22. Thus, as of August 19, 2014, Christina did not owe any obligations to Navient or

Sallie Mae for the discharged student loan accounts.

Transunion Reports Correctly 

23. After the discharge, Transunion correctly reported/reports the discharged student

loan accounts, or at least reported/reports them in a way that did not cause

continued problems for Christina.

24. Experian and Equifax, on the other hand, continue to report outstanding balances

and late payment history on the discharged student loan accounts.

Experian’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the First and Second Disputes

25. In December of 2014, Christina noted Experian was reporting outstanding

balances and post-bankruptcy late payment histories on the following two of the

discharged student loan accounts.

a. Navient Account #: 5029350486538965; Opened: September 2005

b. Navient Account #: 5029350486538973; Opened: December 2005

26. Christina also noted that Experian failed to indicate that the discharged student

loan accounts were included in the bankruptcy.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

6

27. Christina disputed via Experian’s website.

28. In January of 2015, Christina sent another dispute, again via Experian’s website,

requested the status for the discharged student loan accounts be changed to

“included in bankruptcy,” and uploaded the stipulation approved by the

Bankruptcy Court Judge. 

29. On January 12, 2015, Experian sent a letter to Christina stating:

We have reviewed the documentation you provided with

your dispute, but have determined that we are not able to use

it to make the changes or deletions you requested. We are

contacting the furnisher of the information or the vendor

who collected the information from a public record source.

When we complete our processing of your dispute, which

may take up to 30 days (or up to 45 days for a dispute of

information in an annual free credit report), we will send you

the results.

(Exhibit C: Experian’s January 12, 2015 Letter).

30. Experian “processed” the disputes by continuing to report the outstanding

balances and late payment histories on the two of the discharged student loan

accounts. (Exhibit D: Experian’s January 23, 2015 response, pp 8-9).

31. Interestingly, Experian correctly reported the third (opened on March 2006)

discharged student loan accounts.

32. Experian did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s December

2014 and January 2015 on-line disputes as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

33. Experian’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

7

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts. 

Navient’s Unreasonable Investigation of the First 

and Second Disputes to Experian

34. Upon information and belief, Experian forwarded Christina’s December 2014

and January 2015 on-line disputes to Navient as required by 15 U.S.C.

§1681i(a)(2).

35. Upon information and belief, Experian electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verifications (“ACDV”) to Navient.

36. Upon information and belief, Experian’s ACDVs included all information and

documents (including the stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge

uploaded by Christina during her January 2015 on-line dispute) submitted by

Christina to Experian.

37. Navient did not conduct reasonable investigation of Christina’s December 2014

and January 2015 on-line disputes as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

38. Navient’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

8

39. Moreover, Navient appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, the stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge uploaded by

Christina during her January 2015 on-line dispute. 

40. Upon information and belief, Navient verified to Experian that the outstanding

balances and the on-going late payment histories on two of the discharged

student loan accounts were accurate.

41. Navient failed to tell Experian that the two discharged student loan accounts were

included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Experian’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the Third Dispute

42. On March 7, 2015, Christina wrote and mailed a dispute to Experian. (Exhibit E:

Christina’s March 7, 2015 dispute letter and return receipt).

43. In the March 7, 2015 dispute, Christina again explained that the discharged

student loan accounts were discharged in bankruptcy, enclosed a copy of the

stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge, and requested a correction. 

44. On March 23, 2015, Experian sent a letter which was identical to its January 12,

2015 letter. (Exhibit F: Experian’s March 23, 2015 Letter).

45. On the same day, Experian also sent a letter stating:

We are responding to your comment about debts discharged

through bankruptcy. We can update your personal credit

report if you either write to us listing the items included in

the bankruptcy or send us a copy of your bankruptcy

schedule and a court document showing the chapter and

filing date and discharge date of the bankruptcy. Enclose one

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

9

copy of the below information along with your bankruptcy

schedule: . . .

(Exhibit G: Experian’s March 23, 2015 Letter #2).

46. Christina believed the two letters (both dated March 23, 2015) from Experian

were inconsistent with each other as one claimed Experian was “not able to use”

the document provided by Christina, yet the other requested a copy of the

“bankruptcy schedule and a copy of court document showing the chapter and

filing date and discharge date of the bankruptcy.” 

47. Moreover, in her March 23, 2015 dispute letter to Experian, Christina did list the

items included in the bankruptcy but were not being reported as included in

bankruptcy by Experian.

48. Moreover, the January 23, 2015 credit report provided by Experian in response to

Christina’s first and second disputes, Experian listed 14 accounts “included in

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on February 19, 2014.” 

49. To make matters worse, one of the 14 accounts reported as “included in Chapter

7 Bankruptcy on February 19, 2014” included one of the three discharged

student loan accounts.

50. Thus, Christina felt like Experian was simply giving her the run around.

51. While Christina was trying to figure out the best way to respond to the

unreasonable demands by Experian, she received a “correction summary” still

listing the outstanding balances and on-going late payment history for two of the

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

discharged student loan accounts. (Exhibit H: Experian’s April 4, 2015 response,

pp 9-10).

52. The only substantive correction Experian appears to have made in response to

Christina’s third dispute is to list the bankruptcy in the Public Records section.

53. Again, Experian correctly reported the third (opened on March 2006) discharged

student loan accounts.

54. Experian did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s March 23,

2015 dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

55. Experian’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by its inconsistent letters,

unreasonable demand for additional information from Christina, and inconsistent

reporting (reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment

histories, while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student

loan accounts. 

Navient’s Unreasonable Investigation of the Third Dispute to Experian

56. Upon information and belief, Experian forwarded Christina’s March 23, 2015

dispute to Navient as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

57. Upon information and belief, Experian electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Navient.

58. Upon information and belief, Experian’s ACDV included all information and

documents (including the stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge

included in the March 23, 2015 dispute) submitted by Christina to Experian.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

11

59. Navient did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s March 23, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

60. Navient’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

61. Moreover, Navient appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, the stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge provided by

Christina in her March 23, 2015 dispute. 

62. Upon information and belief, Navient verified to Experian that the outstanding

balances and the on-going late payment histories on two of the discharged

student loan accounts were accurate.

63. Navient failed to tell Experian that the two discharged student loan accounts were

included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Christina’s Direct Dispute to Navient Was Ignored.

64. Frustrated by lack of a positive response from Experian, on April 22, 2015,

Christina sent a direct dispute to Navient. (Exhibit I: Christina’s April 22, 2015

Letter and signed receipt). 

65. Christina again included a copy of the relevant bankruptcy court document and a

copy pages of her Experian credit reporting showing the outstanding balances

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

12

and the on-going late payment histories being reported on two of the discharged

student loan accounts.

66. Christina did not receive a response from Navient.

Experian’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the Fourth Dispute

67. On May 8, 2015, Christina wrote and mailed her fourth dispute to Experian. 

(Exhibit J: Christina’s May 8, 2015 dispute letter, enclosures omitted).

68. Christina again enclosed a copy of the August 19, 2014 order signed by the

Bankruptcy Court Judge, pointed out that the three Navient Solutions, Inc.

accounts were discharged, and requested no account balance and no late payment

history reported after the discharge date.

69. Christina also included a copy of her bankruptcy schedule with explanation that

her bankruptcy started as Chapter 13 and was converted to Chapter 7 on

November 20, 2013, and provided a copy of the Notice to Convert.

70. Christina also provided a copy of her driver’s license with the explanation that she

got married in 2011 and uses the name Christina Elaine Cohen as her husband’s

last name is Cohen, and a cell phone bill showing her current address.

71. Last, Christina told Experian that she needs to rent an apartment soon due to her

husband’s job situation and requested an immediate correction. 

72. Contrary to its March 23, 2015 Letter #2 (Exhibit F above) which stated: 

We can update your personal credit report if you either write

to us listing the items included in the bankruptcy or send us a

copy of your bankruptcy schedule and a court document

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

13

showing the chapter and filing date and discharge date of the

bankruptcy . . .

Experian responded with another standard form response which stated:

We have reviewed the documentation you provided with

your dispute, but have determined that we are not able to use

it to make the changes or deletions you requested. We are

contacting the furnisher of the information or the vendor

who collected the information from a public record source.

When we complete our processing of your dispute, which

may take up to 30 days (or up to 45 days for a dispute of

information in an annual free credit report), we will send you

the results.

(Exhibit K: Experian’s May 19, 2015 Letter).

73. On June 3, 2015, Experian sent a response still containing the same outstanding

balances and the on-going late payment histories on two of the discharged

student loan accounts were accurate. (Exhibit L: Experian’s June 3, 2015

response, pp 9-10).

74. Again, Experian correctly reported the third (opened on March 2006) discharged

student loan accounts.

75. Experian did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s May 8, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

76. Experian’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by its May 19, 2015 letter

which was inconsistent with its March 23, 2015 letter, and inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

14

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

Navient’s Unreasonable Investigation of the Fourth Dispute to Experian

77. Upon information and belief, Experian forwarded Christina’s May 8, 2015 dispute

to Navient as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

78. Upon information and belief, Experian electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Navient.

79. Upon information and belief, Experian’s ACDV included all information and

documents submitted by Christina to Experian.

80. Navient did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s May 8, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

81. Navient’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

82. Moreover, Navient appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, the stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court Judge provided by

Christina in her May 8, 2015 dispute. 

83. Upon information and belief, Navient verified to Experian that the outstanding

balances and the on-going late payment histories on two of the discharged

student loan accounts were accurate.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

15

84. Navient failed to tell Experian that the two discharged student loan accounts were

included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Equifax’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the First Dispute

85. In April of 2015, Christina noticed Equifax was reporting late payment histories

on two of the discharged student loan accounts.

86. Christina disputed the wrong information via Equifax’s website.

87. On May 5, 2015, Equifax responded. (Exhibit M: Equifax’s May 5, 2015

response).

88. Equifax did not remove late payment histories on two of the discharged student

loan accounts.

89. Upon information and belief, Equifax correctly reported the third (opened on

March 2006) discharged student loan accounts.

90. Equifax did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s April 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

91. Equifax’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts. 

Navient’s Unreasonable Investigation of the First Dispute to Equifax

92. Upon information and belief, Equifax forwarded Christina’s April 2015 dispute to

Navient as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

16

93. Upon information and belief, Equifax electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Navient.

94. Upon information and belief, Equifax’s ACDV included all information and

documents submitted by Christina to Equifax.

95. Navient did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s April 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

96. Navient’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

97. Moreover, Navient appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, its own internal records regarding the discharged student loan

accounts, and the litigation leading up to the stipulated discharge.

98. Upon information and belief, Navient verified to Equifax that the on-going late

payment histories on two of the discharged student loan accounts were accurate.

99. Navient failed to tell Equifax that the two discharged student loan accounts were

included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Equifax’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the Second Dispute

100. On July 8, 2015, Christina sent a letter, a copy August 19, 2014 order signed by

the judge assigned to the bankruptcy case, the Stipulation, the Schedule from her

bankruptcy filing, Notice to Convert, a copy of her driver’s license, and a cell

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

17

phone bill showing her current address, for her second dispute to Equifax. 

(Exhibit N: Christina’s July 8, 2015 dispute, enclosures omitted).

101. Christina explained the disputed accounts were discharged in her Chapter 7

bankruptcy, and that should be no account balance reported after that discharge

date in the account history section or any late payment history reported after that

date.

102. Christina requested a correction as she need to rent an apartment soon due to her

husband’s job situation. 

103. On July 30, 2015, Equifax responded. (Exhibit O: Equifax’s July 30, 2015

response).

104. Equifax’s response stated “The disputed bankruptcy christina ELAINE gatewood

is currently not reporting on the Equifax credit file” which did not make sense.

105. Equifax did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s July 8, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

106. Equifax’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by its nonsensical response in

its July 30, 2015 response.

107. Given the nonsensical response in its July 30, 2015 response, Equifax may not

have forwarded Christina’s July 8, 2015 dispute to Navient.

108. If Equifax did not forward Christina’s July 8, 2015 dispute to Navient, then

Equifax failed to meet the requirements of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2). 

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

18

Navient’s Unreasonable Investigation of the Second Dispute to Equifax

109. Paragraphs 104 - of this Complaint apply only if Equifax forwarded Christina’s

July 8, 2015 dispute to Navient as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

110. Upon information and belief, Equifax forwarded Christina’s July 8, 2015 dispute

to Navient as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

111. Upon information and belief, Equifax electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Navient.

112. Upon information and belief, Equifax’s ACDV included all information and

documents submitted by Christina to Equifax.

113. Navient did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s July 8, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

114. Navient’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

115. Moreover, Navient appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, its own internal records regarding the discharged student loan

accounts, and the litigation leading up to the stipulated discharge.

116. Upon information and belief, Navient verified to Equifax that the on-going late

payment histories on two of the discharged student loan accounts were accurate.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

19

117. Navient failed to tell Equifax that the two discharged student loan accounts were

included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

118. Alternatively, upon information and belief, Equifax forwarded Christina’s July 8,

2015 dispute to Sallie Mae as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

119. Upon information and belief, Equifax electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Sallie Mae .

120. Upon information and belief, Equifax’s ACDV included all information and

documents submitted by Christina to Equifax.

121. Sallie Mae did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s July 8, 2015

dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

122. Sallie Mae’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

123. Moreover, Sallie Mae appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, its own internal records regarding the discharged student loan

accounts, and the litigation leading up to the stipulated discharge.

124. Upon information and belief, Sallie Mae verified to Equifax that the on-going late

payment histories on two of the discharged student loan accounts were accurate.

125. Sallie Mae failed to tell Equifax that the two discharged student loan accounts

were included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 19 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

20

Equifax’s Unreasonable Reinvestigation of the Third Dispute

126. Given the nonsensical response by Equifax to her July 8, 2015 dispute, Christina

decided to check her Equifax report.

127. Christina was shocked to see that her Equifax report now showed Sallie Mae (as

opposed to Navient) reporting “150 days past due” on the two discharged student

loan accounts. (Exhibit P: August 10, 2015 Equifax Report, p. 11). 

128. On August 20, 2015, Christina again disputed with an explanation letter, a copy

August 19, 2014 order signed by the judge assigned to the bankruptcy case, the

Stipulation, the Schedule from her bankruptcy filing, Notice to Convert, a copy of

her driver’s license, and a cell phone bill showing her current address, for her

third dispute to Equifax. (Exhibit Q: Christina’s August 20, 2015 dispute).

129. Christina again explained the disputed accounts (with Navient Solutions, Inc. fka

Salle Mae) were discharged in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and that should be no

account balance reported after that discharge date in the account history section

or any late payment history reported after that date.

130. Christina requested a correction as she need to rent an apartment soon due to her

husband’s job situation. 

131. On September 18, 2015, Equifax responded. (Exhibit R: Equifax’s September 18,

2015 response).

132. In the response, Equifax refused to remove the “150 Days Past Due” status on

the two discharged student loan accounts, being reported by Sallie Mae. 

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 20 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

133. Equifax did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Christina’s August 20,

2015 dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1).

134. Equifax’s unreasonable reinvestigation is apparent by the inconsistent reporting

of different Sallie Mae accounts – some included in bankruptcy, and some

showing on-going past due status. 

135. Equifax apparently disregarded the substantial bankruptcy documents submitted

by Christina, instead opting to rely on information from Sallie Mae that conflicts

with the bankruptcy documents. 

Sallie Mae’s Unreasonable Investigation of the Third Dispute to Equifax

136. Upon information and belief, Equifax forwarded Christina’s August 20, 2015

dispute to Sallie Mae as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

137. Upon information and belief, Equifax electronically submitted an Automated

Consumer Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to Sallie Mae.

138. Upon information and belief, Equifax’s ACDV included all information and

documents submitted by Christina to Equifax.

139. Sallie Mae did not conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s August 20,

2015 dispute as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b).

140. Sallie Mae’s unreasonable investigation is apparent by its inconsistent reporting 

(reporting two with outstanding balances and on-going late payment histories,

while reporting one as included in bankruptcy) of the discharged student loan

accounts.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 21 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

22

141. Moreover, Sallie Mae appears to have failed to consider, or intentionally

disregarded, its own internal records regarding the discharged student loan

accounts, and the litigation leading up to the stipulated discharge.

142. Upon information and belief, Sallie Mae verified to Equifax that the “150 Days

Past Due” status on two of the discharged student loan accounts were accurate.

143. Sallie Mae failed to tell Equifax that the two discharged student loan accounts

were included in Christina’s bankruptcy.

Christina is Denied Credit And Her Credit Limits Are Lowered 

B an k of Am e ric a

144. In October of 2015, Christina applied for a Bank of America credit card.

145. In connection with her application for credit, Bank of America reviewed 

Christina’s Experian credit report.

146. Upon information and belief, Christina’s Experian credit report showed the

outstanding balance and on-going late payment history for the two discharged

student loan accounts.

147. At the time, Christina’s Experian credit score was 666. 

148. On October 19, 2015, Bank of American denied Christina’s application for a

credit card. (Exhibit S: October 19, 2015 Adverse Action from Bank of America).

149. Bank of America based its decision, at least in part, on the incorrect Navient

account information contained in her Experian Credit Report. 

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 22 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

23

Disc o ve r

150. On December 23, 2015, Christina applied for a credit card with Discover.

151. In connection with her application for credit, Discover pulled Christina’s Equifax

credit report. 

152. At the time, Christina’s Equifax credit report showed the two discharged student

loan accounts reported as Sallie Mae account with “150 Days Past Due” status.

153. On December 23, 2015, Discover denied Christina’s application for a credit card. 

(Exhibit T: December 23, 2015 Adverse Action from Discover). 

154. Discover based its decision, in part, on the incorrect Sallie Mae information

contained in her Equifax Credit Report. 

Christina Is Distressed

155. Each time Christina learned about the wrongful reporting of the Navient and

Sallie Mae accounts, she became more and more anxious.

156. Christina’s husband finished a graduate school education at the University of

Arizona and looked for a job. 

157. Christina and her family (including a 3 year old daughter) anticipated moving (to

anywhere in the nation such as Washington, DC or Colorado) as soon as her

husband obtained a job.

158. Christina’s family depends on her credit being good enough to secure an

apartment as her husband’s credit history is not good due to economic sacrifices

made while pursuing a higher education.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 23 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

24

159. Her FICO score based on Transunion data is 672, while the same for Equifax and

Experian are 605 and 580, respectively.

160. Christina’s husband secured a job in Colorado and they must move within the

next several weeks.

161. Christina has been and is worried that the wrongful reporting of the Navient and

Sallie Mae accounts will prevent her from securing a safe apartment for her

family.

162. The anxiety caused by the credit problems exacerbated the physical symptoms of

her permanent illnesses.

CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 1: VIOLATION OF THE FCRA

(Against Navient and Sallie Mae Only)

163. Navient and Sallie Mae violated the FCRA by willfully and/or negligently failing

to conduct a reasonable investigation of Christina’s disputes in accordance with

15 U.S.C. § 1691s-2(b).

164. As a result of Navient and Sallie Mae’s violations of the FCRA, Christina was

damaged in an amount to be determined by this Court.

165. Navient and Sallie Mae’s conduct, actions and inactions as described above were

willful, rendering them liable for statutory and punitive damages in an amount to

be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6181n.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 24 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

25

166. In the alternative, Navient and Sallie Mae’s conduct, actions and inactions as

described above were negligent, entitling Christina to recover her actual damages

under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

167. Christina is entitled to recover actual and/or statutory damages, punitive damages,

costs and attorney’s fees from Navient and Sallie Mae pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1681n and/or § 1681o.

CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 2: VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

(Against Equifax and Experian Only)

168. Equifax and Experian violated the FCRA by willfully and/or negligently by:

a. By failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation upon Christina’s disputes

as described above. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).

169. As a result of Equifax and Experian’s violations of the FCRA, Christina was

damaged in an amount to be determined by this Court.

170. Equifax and Experian’s conduct, actions and inactions as described above were 

willful, rendering them liable for statutory and punitive damages in an amount to

be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6181n.

171. In the alternative, Equifax and Experian’s conduct, actions and inactions as

described above were negligent, entitling Christina to recover her actual damages

under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 25 of 26
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

26

172. Christina is entitled to recover actual and/or statutory damages, punitive damages,

costs and attorney’s fees from Equifax and Experian pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

1681n and/or § 1681o.

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

173. Christina requests a jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Christina prays that this Court enter Judgment in her favor and

against Defendants for the following:

a. Actual damages, 

b. Statutory damages, 

c. Punitive damages, 

d. Attorney’s fees and costs;

e. Interest on the judgment rendered herein at the maximum lawful rate from

the date of its rendition until paid in full; and,

f. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 30th of December, 2015.

CHOI & FABIAN, PLC

By: /s/ Hyung S. Choi 

 Hyung S. Choi

 Attorneys for Christina Cohen

Case 4:15-cv-00608-DCB Document 1 Filed 12/30/15 Page 26 of 26