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

hyung@choianfabian.com

veronika@choiandfabian.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mikhail Miller,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Midway Chevrolet Company I, LLC

d/b/a Midway Chevrolet;

Defendant.

 NO. 

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant car dealer accessed Plaintiff’s credit information without any legal

justification. Defendant also supplied various car loan companies with personal

information about Plaintiff, causing the loan companies to access Plaintiff’s credit

information. To make the matters worse, Defendant refused to even respond to

Plaintiff’s request to send the illegally obtained credit reports to him and delete 

electronically kept information about him. Plaintiff brings this case to remedy

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

Defendant’s impermissible access of Plaintiff’s credit information in violations of

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

which confers jurisdiction over Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims

without regard to the amount in controversy. The sole claim asserted in this

case is for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This Court has subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681p.

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1337 because

Defendant’s principal place of business is located at 2323 West Bell Road,

Phoenix, Arizona 85023. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Mikhail Miller (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) is an individual

residing in Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona. 

5. Plaintiff is a consumer as that term is defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

15 U.S.C. §1681a(c). 

6. Defendant Midway Chevrolet Company I, LLC d/b/a Midway Chevrolet

(“Midway” or “Defendant”) is a for-profit entity organized pursuant to the

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

3

laws of Arizona with its principal place of business at 2323 West Bell Road,

Phoenix, Arizona 85023. 

FACTS

7. A few days before September 15, 2015, Plaintiff received a solicitation from

Capital One Auto Finance which stated “You’re pre-approved for up to $35,000

in auto financing.”

8. The solicitation directed Plaintiff to take the letter to Midway.

9. On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff went to Midway with the letter.

10. Plaintiff was introduced to salesperson Benjamin Navarrette.

11. Plaintiff gave the Capital One solicitation letter to Navarrette, and told Navarrette

that he was interested in buying a car with Capital One’s pre-approved credit.

12. Navarrette asked Plaintiff for personal information such as birth date, social

security number, etc.

13. Plaintiff told Navarrette that he did not want to provide his personal information

as he did not want Midway to pull his credit. 

14. Plaintiff reiterated he wanted to use Capital One’s pre-approved credit, and he did

not see any reason for Midway to pull his credit. 

15. Plaintiff was familiar with how a dealership uses information on a perspective

customer during negotiations, and he did not want Midway to have access to his

credit history.

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

4

16. In fact, Plaintiff attempted to buy a vehicle a few months prior and felt the dealer

was using information on his credit history against him. 

17. Plaintiff decided not to buy a car at that time, and Plaintiff did not want that to

happen again.

18. Plaintiff pointedly told Navarrette that he was not going to sign any documents

such as a credit application which will authorize Midway to pull his credit history. 

19. Navarrette agreed Midway will not pull Plaintiff’s credit history. 

20. Plaintiff did not ask for any credit from Midway.

21. Notwithstanding the fact that Navarrette agreed Midway would not pull Plaintiff’s

credit history, and the fact that Plaintiff did not ask for any credit from Midway, 

Midway accessed Plaintiff’s credit file from Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion

on September 15th, 2015. (Exhibit A).

22. Experian is a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.

§1681a(f). 

23. Equifax is a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.

§1681a(f). 

24. TransUnion is a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C.

§1681a(f). 

25. Experian acts as a data repository, assembling and storing information on

consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

5

26. Equifax acts as a data repository, assembling and storing information on

consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.

27. TransUnion acts as a data repository, assembling and storing information on

consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties.

28. Midway is a subscriber and user of consumer reports issued by Experian.

29. Midway is a subscriber and user of consumer reports issued by Equifax.

30. Midway is a subscriber and user of consumer reports issued by TransUnion.

31. On September 15, 2015, Midway accessed the contents of Plaintiff’s credit file

from Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, doing what is colloquially known as 

“hard pulls.” 

32. In connection therewith, Midway made a general or specific certification to

Experian, Equifax and TransUnion that Midway sought the information because

it had a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a

business transaction initiated by Plaintiff or to review an account to determine

whether Plaintiff continued to meet the terms of said account.

33. Midway’s certification to Experian was false as it did not have any legitimate

business need or on-going account with Plaintiff.

34. Rather, Midway accessed Plaintiff’s credit information to gain an unfair advantage

in negotiating with Plaintiff. 

35. To make the matters worse, Midway then sent Plaintiff’s personal information to

Santander Consumer USA. 

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

6

36. As a result, Santander Consumer USA pulled Plaintiff’s credit history through

Experian on September 15, 2015. (Exhibit A).

37. Midway also sent Plaintiff’s personal information to California Republic Bank. 

38. As a result, California Republic Bank pulled Plaintiff’s credit history through

Experian on September 15, 2015. (Exhibit A).

39. Midway also sent Plaintiff’s personal information to COAF. 

40. As a result, COAF pulled Plaintiff’s credit history through TransUnion on

September 15, 2015. (Exhibit A).

41. Midway also sent Plaintiff’s personal information to Ally Financial. 

42. As a result, Ally Financial pulled Plaintiff’s credit history through TransUnion on

September 15, 2015. (Exhibit A).

43. Midway also sent Plaintiff’s personal information to Compass Bank. 

44. As a result, Compass Bank pulled Plaintiff’s credit history through TransUnion on

September 15, 2015. (Exhibit A).

45. To make the matters even worse, Plaintiff’s attempt to communicate with Midway

about the illegal pull of his credit has met with complete silence.

46. Plaintiff told Navarrette about the illegal pull and asked him to gather credit

reports and give them to Plaintiff, and delete all electronically kept credit reports.

47. Navarrette did not respond.

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

7

48. On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff faxed a letter to the finance director at Midway,

asking him or her to gather credit reports and give them to Plaintiff, and delete all

electronically kept credit reports. (Exhibit B).

49. Plaintiff did not receive a response to his October 15, 2015 letter.

50. On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff faxed another letter to the finance director at

Midway, again asking him or her to gather credit reports and give them to

Plaintiff, and delete all electronically kept credit reports. (Exhibit C).

51. Plaintiff did not receive a response to his October 26, 2015 letter.

52. On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff faxed his final letter to the finance director at

Midway, again asking him or her to gather credit reports and give them to

Plaintiff, and delete all electronically kept credit reports. (Exhibit D).

53. Plaintiff did not receive a response to his November 24, 2015 letter.

CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 1: VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

54. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations

set forth in above Paragraphs.

55. Midway is a “person” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. §1681a (b).

56. The FCRA establishes very specific rules placing limitations upon an entity (or

“person”) seeking to obtain a consumer’s credit history or the content of a

consumer’s credit file, as follows: 

(f) Certain use or obtaining of information prohibited. - A person shall not

use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless -

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

8

(1) the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the

consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section;

and

(2) the purpose is certified in accordance with section 1681e of this

title by a prospective user of the report through a general or specific

certification.

See 15 U.S.C. §1681b(f).

57. Section1681 b(a)(3) of the FCRA lists the all-inclusive purposes for which a

consumer report can be obtained, as follows:

(a) In General. - * * * [A] consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer

report under the following circumstances and no other:

***

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe -

(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit

transaction involving the consumer on whom the

information is to be furnished and involving the extension of

credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the

consumer; or 

***

(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information -

(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated

by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine

whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the

account.

58. Midway had no permissible purpose as set forth under the FCRA to obtain

Plaintiff’s credit history from Experian, Equifax or TransUnion. 

59. Midway had actual knowledge that it had no permissible purpose to obtain

Plaintiff’s credit information from Experian, Equifax or TransUnion.

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

9

60. Midway willfully violated the FCRA to gain unfair advantage in its dealings with

Plaintiff.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Midway’s willful conduct as outlined above,

Plaintiff is entitled to $100-$1000 in statutory damages, plus punitive damages and

reasonable attorney’s fees together with the costs of this action as provided by 15

U.S.C. §1681n.

62. Alternatively, Midway’s impermissible access of Plaintiff’s credit information

constitutes a negligent violation as set forth in 15 U.S.C. §1681o. In this regard,

Plaintiff is entitled to recover his actual damages in an amount to be proven at

trial, plus attorney’s fees together with the costs of this action.

JURY DEMAND

63. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter Judgment in his favor and

against Defendant 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,

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

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

DATED this 20 of January, 2016. th

CHOI & FABIAN, PLC

By: /s/ Hyung S. Choi 

 Hyung S. Choi

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-00135-MHB Document 1 Filed 01/20/16 Page 10 of 10