EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A consumer has filed a lawsuit in California federal court against a collection operation and a credit reporting agency for furnishing information about an unpaid debt dating back to the COVID-19 pandemic, that not only does the consumer dispute he owes, but also that he had previously filed another lawsuit against a different collection operation for the same alleged actions.
The background: The plaintiff rented a property for four years, before moving out in October 2020. In 2023, the plaintiff received a collection notice that sought to collect $39,000 in unpaid rents and other “past due amounts” that had accrued since he moved out.
- The plaintiff hired an attorney, disputed the debt, and filed a lawsuit against the collection operation, according to the complaint. During the course of litigation, the negative tradeline was removed from the plaintiff’s credit report.
- This past July, while working on obtaining a mortgage, the plaintiff discovered that the same debt was being reported on his credit report, except this time it was being reported by another collection operation — the defendant.
The claims: The suit accuses the credit reporting agency of violating the CARES Act by reporting negative information in relation to a debt for which the plaintiff received an “accommodation.” The suit also accuses the credit reporting agency of not ensuring the maximum possible accuracy of the information it includes in its credit reports.
- The plaintiff is also accusing the collection operation defendant of violating Sections 1692c, 1692d, 1682e, 1692f, and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by making “false statements, threatening implications, and deceptive misrepresentations.” The defendant is also accused of violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well.
