LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 120371)
26440 La Alameda, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
(949) 582-0910
(949) 582-0988 (fax)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST, SANTA ANA, CA 92701
ISABEL DECKER, DAVID DECKER, ) No. ___________________
THOMAS MILLER, MELISSA )
MILLER, LORETTA STOCKTON, )
on behalf of themselves ) CLASS ACTION
and all similarly situated persons, )
) COMPLAINT FOR
Plaintiffs, ) 1. VIOLATION OF CONSUMER
) CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES
v. ) ACT—False Information
) (Civil Code § 1785.1 et. seq.)
) 2. VIOLATION OF CCRAA--
) Confidential Information
THE U.D. REGISTRY, INC., ) 3. VIOLATION OF CCRAA--
HARVEY A. SALTZ, and Does 1 ) Reporting Unsuccessful Evictions
through 100 inclusive, ) 4. NEGLIGENCE
) 5. DEFAMATION
) 6. INVASION OF PRIVACY--
) False Light
) 7. INVASION OF PRIVACY—
) Disclosure of Private Facts
) 8. VIOLATION OF
) INFORMATION PRACTICES
) ACT (Civil Code § 1798.53)
) 9. UNFAIR COMPETITION
) (Business & Professions Code
Defendants. ) § 17200 et. seq.)
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
1
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. Plaintiffs ISABEL DECKER, DAVID DECKER, THOMAS MILLER, MELISSA MILLER
and LORETTA STOCKTON, individuals, bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of other consumers and the general public pursuant to Business and Professions Code §
17204 and Business and Professions Code § 17535, and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382.
2. Plaintiffs Isabel and David Decker are now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint were,
competent adults, and a residents of the County of Orange.
3. Plaintiffs Thomas and Melissa Miller are now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint
were, competent adults and residents of the County of San Diego.
4. Plaintiff Stockton is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a competent adult
and a resident of the County of San Diego.
5. Defendant The U.D. Registry, Inc. (hereinafter UDR) is now, and at all times mentioned in this
Complaint was, a corporation doing business in the County of Orange, State of California. One
or more of the transactions that are the subject of this lawsuit occurred in the County of Orange.
6. Defendant, Harvey A. Saltz (hereinafter Saltz) is now, and at all times mentioned in this
Complaint was, an individual residing in place unknown.
7. Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of these fictitiously named defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ damages as
2
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
herein alleged were proximately caused by those defendants. Each reference in this complaint
to "defendant" or "defendants" or to a specifically named defendant refers also to all defendants
sued under fictitious names.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein mentioned each
of the defendants, including all defendants sued under fictitious names, and each of the persons
who are not parties to this action but are identified by name or otherwise throughout this
complaint, was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and in doing the
things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of this agency and employment.
Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the defendants,
including all defendants sued under fictitious names, and each of the persons who are not
parties to this action but are identified by name or otherwise throughout this complaint, was the
alter ego of each of the remaining defendants.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiffs are members of an umbrella class of persons, the members of which are similarly
situated to each other member of that class. The umbrella class of persons is defined as
follows:
Persons about whom defendants published eviction reports during
the past seven years disclosing that the persons were defendants in
an “eviction” action.
10. Plaintiffs are each members of three subclasses, the members of which are similarly situated to
each other member of that subclass. The subclasses are defined as follows:
(a) FALSE INFORMATION SUBCLASS. Persons whose eviction
reports contained stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and
misleading information.
3
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
(b) IN FORMA PAUPERIS SUBCLASS. Persons whose eviction
reports disclosed the person had received in forma pauperis status.
(c) PREVAILING PARTY SUBCLASS. Persons whose eviction
reports disclosed the person was a defendant in an unlawful detainer
action in which the lessor was not the prevailing party.
Except where otherwise noted, the term “class” refers to the
umbrella class and the subclass, and all causes of action refer to
members of all classes. Many class members are members of two or
three subclasses.
11. The classes plaintiffs represent include tens of thousands of persons. The classes are so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring all members of the classes before the court.
12. The plaintiffs’ and class members’ claims against defendants involve questions of law or fact
common to the particular class that are substantially similar and predominate over questions
affecting individual class members, in that all class members were the subject of eviction
reports prepared by defendants which reports: in the case of all members of the False
Information Subclass, falsely described the status of the unlawful detainer proceeding; and in
the case of all members of the In Forma Pauperis Subclass disclosed their in forma pauperis
status; and in the case of all members of the Prevailing Party Subclass disclosed the existence
of the unlawful detainer action even though the lessor was not the prevailing party.
13. The claims of plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the umbrella class and each
subclass.
14. Plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent the interests of the umbrella class and each
subclass.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
UDR AND HARVEY SALTZ
4
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
15. UDR gathers information regarding residential renters and sells that information to its
subscribers, mainly landlords and their agents. It claims it is the largest and most
comprehensive tenant screening company anywhere. It claims it was the first to include the
reporting of eviction court filings and judgments as part of the tenant screening process.
Eviction filings and judgments are available through UDR from over 25 states.
16. The “standard” report prepared by UDR and sold to landlords is called a “Eviction/Tenancy
Report” (hereinafter eviction report) and includes, in addition to the reports of eviction filings
and judgments, a tenant history supplied by prior landlords, information about whether the
prospective tenant has had property foreclosed, filed bankruptcy, been involved in properly
related litigation, previously made an “Arrieta” claim, or was a fugitive or vexatious litigant.
Credit reports can also be obtained for an additional fee.
17. It has always been the policy and practice of UDR to enter stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
incomplete and misleading information into its database and then release that information to its
members in eviction reports. This policy was personally developed and implemented by the
company’s President and founder, Saltz. He proudly proclaims himself the “father of the
tenant screening business.”
18. This policy provides that if a landlord ever files an unlawful detainer action against a tenant,
that information will be reported to the membership as being an “eviction,” regardless of the
fact whether or not the tenant was actually evicted, and regardless of the fact the action may
have been completely meritless and dismissed either before a hearing or at the time of trial.
19. UDR falsely claims that its records are continuously updated by accessing court records every
day. As will be demonstrated below, each of the plaintiffs had stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
5
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
incomplete and misleading information in his or her eviction reports. Indeed, UDR did not
have and still does not have any process or system that allows it to reliably update such
improper information. The policy developed by Saltz relies upon the tenants themselves to
discover the presence of stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading
information in their reports and report that to UDR for investigation. This policy falls far short
of the legal or ethical requirements discussed below.
20. Saltz also developed the policy of reporting confidential information such as the granting of in
forma pauperis status to tenants in connection with their defense of unlawful detainer actions.
DECKER PLAINTIFFS
21. The Deckers were living in a nine-unit apartment complex in Los Alamitos in 1996 and 1997.
They terminated their month-to-month tenancy in October of 1997 and moved out in
November 1997. The Deckers paid their rent and fulfilled their contractual obligations. They
were not evicted (i.e., removed by legal process) from the premises. Their landlord falsely
claimed they were still in possession and owed rent. He also refused to return their security
deposit.
22. On October 15, 1997, their landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against them in West
Orange County Judicial District, case no. 237399. That lawsuit was never served on the
Deckers and the landlord dismissed it without prejudice on November 5, 1997.
23. On November 14, 1997, their landlord filed another unlawful detainer action against them in
West Orange County Judicial District, case no. 238228. The Deckers submitted a confidential
application for waiver of court costs which was granted and they filed an Answer. Although a
default judgment was initially obtained against them in December 1997 due to inadequate
6
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
notice, that default was subsequently set aside in March of 1998. That case was dismissed on
June 8, 1998 due to their landlord’s failure to prosecute.
24. The Deckers filed a small claims lawsuit against their landlord to recover the security deposit.
In Case No. 323608, West Orange County Municipal Court, judgment was entered on July 15,
1998, in favor of the Deckers against their landlord in the amount of $200 plus costs.
25. After leaving Los Alamitos, the Deckers moved to an apartment in Garden Grove where they
lived until January 2000. Meanwhile, in November of 1999, the Deckers started looking to rent
another apartment or house. In December 1999, the Deckers applied for an apartment in the
Santa Ana area managed by Satellite Management Company. The landlord declined their
application due to the eviction reported in UDR’s report. The landlord served a notice on the
Deckers advising them to contact UDR for further information and gave them a copy of the
UDR report.
26. The report dated December 17, 1999 identified the Deckers and provided the following
information about case no. 238228. “Case Type: Eviction,” filed 11-14-97, “Type Notice: 3
day Rent.” Regarding the disposition of the case, it stated: “Judgment: For Plaintiff 12-18-97
$961 Contested Paid $0,” and disclosed the Deckers had obtained a “Fee Waiver.” In other
words, the report inaccurately stated that the (plaintiff) landlord prevailed and obtained a
judgment for $961 of which amount the Deckers had paid nothing. The truth was that the
Deckers had prevailed and the action had been dismissed.
27. The report also referred to case no. 237399 and provided this information: “Case Type:
Eviction,” filed 10-15-97, “Type Notice: 3 day Rent.” Regarding the disposition of the case, it
7
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
stated: “Case Dismissed $0 Paid $0 Comments $870.” There was no mention of the fact this
was not a separate eviction proceeding but the same one resolved in the above case.
28. The report did not mention anywhere that the landlord had not only filed meritless lawsuits but
had unlawfully withheld the Deckers security deposit or that the Deckers had successfully sued
the landlord for return of the deposit.
29. In January 2000, the Deckers’ attorney wrote to UDR and advised it that the information in the
eviction report was misleading and incomplete and provided copies of the relevant court
records. He also asked UDR to remove the reference to the confidential fee waiver. Less than
a week later, UDR, through its President Harvey A. Saltz, wrote back that it would not remove
the reference to case 238228 because it was dismissed “due to a paper work reduction policy
and not on the merits of the case.” He also claimed that it was UDR’s “obligations, by law, to
report the existence of legal actions and the fact that the case was dismissed does not change
that obligation.”
30. Contrary to Mr. Saltz’s comments, UDR has no such legal obligation to report any legal
actions. Rather it has at most a limited right to report certain public information in a
non-misleading manner.
31. Saltz also advised the Decker’s lawyer that UDR did not agree fee waivers were confidential
and would continue to report them in the future.
32. Despite the presence of the negative information, the Deckers were able to obtain housing at
Wimbledon Glen in Costa Mesa, but only by having their daughter (Stephanie, age 24) co-sign
for the apartment and move in with them. They also were required to pay a higher security
deposit ($800 instead of $500). They moved directly from Garden Grove to Wimbledon Glen.
8
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
33. In December 2000 or January 2001, the Deckers applied for housing in the Irvine Apartment
Corporation because Wimbledon Glen raised their rent by $175 per month. The Irvine
Apartments rejected the application due to the eviction and gave a copy of another UDR
eviction report to them. This report, dated January 14, 2001, contained the same information
about case no. 237399 as was found in the older report. It updated the information about case
no. 238228 but only to add in the “Comments” section: “12-18-97 Court Jgmt for $961 was
vacated 3-27-98 and no further trial settings and case was dismissed and destroyed for lack of
prosecution.” Even the updated report did not disclose the original judgment was vacated
because it was improper and left the impression that there was some merit to the landlord’s
action.
34. The Deckers had no choice but to continue to live in Wimbledon Glen and pay the higher rent.
Due to a change of jobs, the Deckers had to move to Nevada in May 2001. They applied for
housing at Pacific Madera Apartments in Las Vegas. Pacific Madera obtained a UDR report
and advised the Deckers their application was being denied due to the eviction. The Deckers
offered to pay a higher security deposit but the landlord said that would not help. The Deckers
are now renting a house from a private homeowner who demanded a very high security deposit
of $2,000.
MILLER PLAINTIFFS
35. In 1999, plaintiffs Thomas and Melissa Miller and their two-year-old child were tenants in the
Felicita Creek Apartments in Escondido, California. The Millers paid their rent and fulfilled
their contractual obligations. They were not evicted from the premises. The landlord
commenced an unlawful detainer action against the Millers in April of 1999 in San Diego
9
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Superior Court case no. 195998. The Millers obtained a confidential order granting a fee
waiver and filed an Answer. The landlord dismissed that lawsuit and a judgment of dismissal
was entered by the Clerk’s Office on May 17, 1999. There had never been an eviction and no
judgment was entered against the Millers.
36. Nevertheless, sometime between April and July 1999, UDR entered information from the court
file into its database. Unknown prospective landlords who considered the Millers’ applications
for rental housing obtained this information.
37. After leaving the Felicita Creek Apartments in May 1999, Tom Miller’s family separated while
he looked for housing. His wife and children (including a newborn) moved in with her parents
and Tom Miller lived with a friend. He looked for rental housing in May and thereafter but was
rejected by multiple landlords. However he did not get anything in writing as to why he was
rejected. He did not learn why until July 1999.
38. On July 23, 1999, The Millers applied to rent housing through Homes Managements Sales.
The management company obtained an eviction report on the Millers from UDR and then
declined his application. The company advised Thomas Miller in writing the reason for the
denial was a UDR eviction report which listed him as having an “eviction.” The company
provided Miller a copy of the report. The July 1999 UDR report identified the Millers and
referred to the foregoing unlawful detainer action. In summarizing the case, the report
indicated “Case Type: Eviction,” identified the court and case number and filing date, “Type
Notice: 3 day Rent” and referring to the case disposition stated “Judgment: No jgmt on record
$0” and “Paid $0.”
10
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
39. In essence, this July 1999 report told the prospective landlord that the Millers had suffered an
eviction for failing to pay rent, that a case was pending against them and no judgment had been
entered yet. It also suggested they had paid nothing on the debt. The reality was that two
months earlier the landlord dismissed the lawsuit, which had no legal basis in the first place.
40. The Millers continued to attempt to rent housing from August 1999 to April 2001 but were
unsuccessful. Concerned about the effect of the UDR report on landlords, in September 1999,
Thomas Miller obtained a letter from the attorney for the Felicita Creek Apartments which
confirmed that there was no judgment against him and the case had been dismissed. It further
stated that it was the landlord’s intention “to have the matter removed from [the Millers’] credit
history.” Despite this letter, which the Millers showed to prospective landlords, they were
repeatedly denied housing and told that with the “eviction” listed no one would rent to them.
41. Due to his inability to rent suitable housing, Tom Miller, his wife and two children (one born
3-97 and the other 5-99) had to live in a seedy motel frequented by drug dealers, hookers and
other undesirable elements. In April of 2001, the Millers were finally able to rent an apartment
in Escondido despite the adverse information in the eviction report, perhaps because that
landlord was sympathetic to a fellow veteran.
42. Meanwhile, in January 2001, Thomas Miller requested a copy of his UDR report. Defendant
sent him a report dated January 16, 2001 that was somewhat different than the July 1999 report.
This one again stated their identifying information and referred to the same unlawful detainer
action. It stated: “Case Type: Eviction,” “Type Notice: 3 Day Rent,” the court and case
number and the parties, “Judgment: Case Dismissed $0 Contested Paid $0 Fee Waiver.”
11
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
The new report still falsely implied that he had been evicted which never occurred. It also
added new information—that he had confidentially obtained a waiver of court costs.
43. Also in January 2001, Thomas Miller sent UDR a copy of the aforementioned attorney letter
explaining the Felicitas Creek Apartments did not believe that the matter should be on his
credit report. In February 2001, UDR responded with the false claim that he was in arrears at
the time the case was filed by Felicitas Creek and refused to remove the information from his
report. However, there is no evidence that Miller owed any money to the Felicitas Creek
Apartments at that the time it filed the unlawful detainer action. Accordingly, UDR had no
basis for claiming he was in arrears.
PLAINTIFF STOCKTON
44. In 1998, Plaintiff Stockton was living in rented housing. The landlord, Naomi Williams,
falsely claimed she did not pay her rent. Stockton moved out while the parties disputed the
issue. In October 1998, her landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against Stockton in San
Diego Municipal Court, case no. 073079. Stockton obtained a confidential waiver of costs and
filed an Answer on October 14, 1998. On November 10, 1998, her landlord dismissed this
case.
45. Meanwhile, Stockton had obtained other housing. However, she later sought to move again.
In December 1999, Stockton applied for an apartment with A & J Property Management. The
landlord obtained a UDR report and declined the application due to the presence of information
about the eviction. Stockton obtained the report dated December 21, 1999 which referred to
case 073079 and stated: “Case Type: Eviction,” filed 10-9-98, “Type Notice: 30 day Quit.”
12
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Regarding the disposition, the report said: “Judgment: No Jgmt on Record $0 Contested
Paid: $0 Fee Waiver.”
46. The UDR report was inaccurate as it failed to reveal the landlord had dismissed the action back
in November 1998. “No judgment on record” implies that the case is still pending or a
judgment was obtained but has been misplaced by the court. Instead, the truth was the
unlawful detainer action had been dismissed even before the court had the chance to rule it was
meritless.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE FALSE
INFORMATION SUBCLASS FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT
REPORTING AGENCIES ACT—FAILURE TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE
PROCEDURES TO ASSURE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY OF
INFORMATION—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
47. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
46, inclusive.
48. Plaintiffs and class members are now and at all times mentioned in this complaint were
"consumers" within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.3, which is part of the Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act (hereinafter CCRAA).
49. Defendant UDR is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a consumer credit
reporting agency and prepared consumer credit reports within the meaning of Civil Code §
1785.3 in the regular course of its business pursuant to a policy developed and implemented by
Saltz.
13
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
50. Defendant Saltz is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, President and
Director of UDR. Saltz personally developed and implemented the policies and practices of
UDR as set forth above and, on occasion, specifically responded to consumer complaints.
51. During the past seven years, defendants have committed numerous violations of Civil Code §
1785.14, subdivision (b) of the CCRAA against plaintiffs and class members by preparing
consumer credit reports without following “reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information” provided. As a result, defendants published reports that
contained stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information concerning
the plaintiffs and class members.
52. For example, in these reports defendants often described the status of court proceedings with
descriptions that were out of date by months or even years. As a result, defendants inaccurately
described the current status (at the time of publication) of the actions against plaintiffs and
class members.
53. Additionally, defendants described the legal proceedings in a misleading or inadequate
fashion. For example, defendants label all “unlawful detainer” actions as “evictions.” Several
common dictionaries define an “eviction” as the recovery of premises by process of law, or the
act or process of compelling the tenant to leave the premises. The common definition clearly
implies the tenant has refused to leave voluntarily. Yet, none of the plaintiffs refused to leave
the premises and none of them were “evicted.” Rather, the landlords falsely claimed the
tenants owed rent after they left, but such claims were meritless. Unless the defendants have
evidence that the tenant was actually “evicted” or sued to be forced to vacate the premises,
defendants should not have used the term “eviction” to describe such tenant’s situations.
14
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
54. Other misleading terms used by defendants are “case dismissed” or “no judgment on record.”
These terms are used to describe the situation where a tenant was sued but the action proved to
be meritless. By definition, the tenant defendants were the prevailing party in each such
instance. While defendants should not have disclosed such actions at all, to the extent they did
so, it was misleading not to also disclose that the landlord’s claim was meritless or the tenants
were the prevailing party.
55. Defendants knew that much of the information in their database was stale, obsolete, false,
inaccurate, incomplete and misleading, yet took no actions to identify such information and
remove it from the database. Defendants knew that many tenants were unaware of the presence
of such information in the eviction reports and provided to landlords because most landlords do
not provide copies of the reports to the prospective tenants whose applications are denied.
Many landlords do not even tell the tenants why their application was denied or reveal the role
played by defendants in that denial. Defendants knew that many tenants would be rendered
homeless or would have to higher rent or security deposits because of the presence of the stale,
obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information reported by defendants.
56. Defendants’ misconduct was willful within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.31, subdivision
(a) (2). Defendants have advised tenants complaining about the presence of false and
misleading information in their eviction reports that UDR was legally “obligated” to report
eviction filings even where the case had been dismissed or abandoned by the landlord and even
where the landlord requested the eviction be removed from the tenant’s eviction report. Since
UDR has absolutely no such legal obligation and could easily choose not to report unsuccessful
eviction actions, it is clear that defendants’ misconduct was willful.
15
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
57. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members were denied housing due to the presence of the stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
incomplete and misleading information reported by defendants, all to their further special
damage in an amount to be shown according to proof.
58. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained severe emotional and psychological distress,
anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are entitled to
compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31,
subdivision (a) (2) (A).
59. Because defendants’ violations set forth above were willful, plaintiffs and class members are
entitled to receive punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 for each
violation and in an amount to be determined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2) (B) and
(c).
60. Defendants should be enjoined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31, subdivision (b) to alter their
policies and procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported
and specifically to remove from eviction reports all reference to the aforementioned unlawful
detainer actions involving plaintiffs as well as similarly stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
incomplete or misleading information from the eviction reports of class members.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE IN
FORMA PAUPERIS SUBCLASS FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT
REPORTING AGENCIES ACT—REPORTING CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
16
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
61. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
60, inclusive.
62. As related above, each of the plaintiffs and many of the class members where involved in
unlawful detainer actions in which they applied for forma pauperis status. In each case, the
application was granted in full and payment of court fees and costs was waived. All
applications and orders relating to the granting of in forma pauperis status are confidential by
law. (See e.g., Rules of Court, Rule 985, subdivisions (d), (h); Government Code § 68511.3.)
63. During the past seven years, defendants have committed numerous violations of Civil Code §
1785.13 (d) of the CCRAA against plaintiffs and class members by preparing consumer credit
reports which disclosed “information concerning a consumer” that “otherwise is prohibited
from being included in a consumer credit report.” Specifically, defendants disclosed the fact
that the tenants had obtained an order granting in forma pauperis status. This fact was notated
on the reports by the term “fee waiver.” It is common knowledge that such waivers are
obtained by parties who are government disability, welfare or who have extremely low
incomes.
64. Information relating to the granting of in forma pauperis status is the type of information the
legislature sought to preclude from disclosure according to Civil Code § 1785.1 (c) which
states that one purpose of the CCRAA is to protect the consumer’s right of privacy.
Subdivision (d) of this section states the needs of commerce must be exercised “in a manner
which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy,
relevancy and proper utilization of such information. . . .” The granting of in forma pauperis
status is a private matter between applicant and court, the record of which is confidential, and
17
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
which has no relevance to and is not a proper concern of the landlord considering whether to
rent to the tenant.
65. Defendants’ misconduct was willful within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.31. UDR has
advised tenants complaining about the disclosure of their in forma pauperis status in the
eviction reports that UDR was intentionally obtaining and disclosing such information, felt it
had a right to do so, and would continue to do so.
66. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members were denied housing due to the disclosure of the in forma pauperis status
reported by defendants, all to their further special damage in an amount to be shown according
to proof.
67. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained severe emotional and psychological distress,
anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are entitled to
compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31
(2) (A).
68. Because defendants’ violations set forth above were willful, plaintiffs and class members are
entitled to receive punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 for each
violation and in an amount to be determined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2) (B) and
(c).
69. Defendants should be enjoined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31, subdivision (b) to alter their
policies and procedures to respect the confidentiality of in forma pauperis status proceedings
18
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
and specifically to remove from eviction reports all reference to the in forma pauperis status of
plaintiffs and class members.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE FALSE
INFORMATION SUBCLASS AND PREVAILING PARTY SUBCLASS FOR
VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES
ACT—REPORTING UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS IN WHICH LESSOR WAS
NOT PREVAILING PARTY—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
70. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
69, inclusive.
71. During the past seven years, defendants have committed numerous violations of Civil Code §
1785.13 (a) (3) of the CCRAA against plaintiffs and class members by preparing consumer
credit reports which disclosed an unlawful detainer action involving the plaintiffs or class
members even though the lessor was not the prevailing party in those actions.
72. Defendants’ misconduct was willful within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.31. UDR
intentionally reports all unlawful detainer actions regardless of which party prevailed. UDR
has even sued in the past to obtain that “right.”
73. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members were denied housing due to the existence of the unlawful detainer actions
reported by defendants, all to their further special damage in an amount to be shown according
to proof.
74. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained severe emotional and psychological distress,
19
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are entitled to
compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31
(2) (A).
75. Because defendants’ violations set forth above were willful, plaintiffs and class members are
entitled to receive punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 for each
violation and in an amount to be determined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2) (B) and
(c).
76. Defendants should be enjoined pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31, subdivision (b) to alter their
policies and procedures to report unlawful detainer actions only when the lessor is the
prevailing party and specifically to remove from eviction reports all reference to the unlawful
detainers involving plaintiffs and class members.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF ALL
SUBCLASSES FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS
77. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
76, inclusive.
78. The CCRAA establishes a statutory duty for consumer credit reporting agencies to act
reasonably in insuring the maximum possible accuracy of the information they publish. In
addition, defendants had a common law duty not to publish stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
incomplete, and misleading information concerning a person’s creditworthiness.
79. As set forth above, defendants did not have in place adequate procedures to avoid reporting
stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading information concerning the status
of unlawful detainer actions against plaintiffs and class members. As a result, on numerous
20
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
occasions, defendants negligently and carelessly reported such information in violation of its
statutory and common law duties.
80. In doing so, defendants acted with malice and willful intent to injure within the meaning of
Civil Code § 1785.32 and, accordingly, may bring a negligence claim. As set forth above,
defendants knew that much of the information in their database was inaccurate, knew that
prospective renters were being deprived of housing because of the presence of such
information, the existence of which most renters were unaware. Defendants acted despicably
and with willful and conscious disregard of the high probability that many tenants would have
false adverse information reported for an extended period of time and took no action to avoid
that probable result.
81. Each time a landlord obtained an eviction report from defendants which contained the stale,
obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading information regarding plaintiffs and
class members constituted a separate and distinct violation. Plaintiffs and class members are
not aware of the existence of each and every such negligent publication committed by
defendants over the years and by the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been so
aware. However, plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that while
numerous negligent publications occurred over years, at least one such publication occurred
with respect to each plaintiff and each class member either: a) within the last year or b) before
the last year but which was not discovered or reasonable discoverable prior to the last year.
82. As a proximate result of the negligence of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and class
members were denied housing due to the existence of the stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
21
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
incomplete, and misleading information reported by defendants, all to their further special
damage in an amount to be shown according to proof.
83. As a further proximate result of the negligence of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members have sustained loss of reputation, severe emotional and psychological distress,
anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are entitled to
compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof.
84. The aforementioned acts of defendants constituted malice, oppression and fraud within the
meaning of Civil Code § 3294, and thereby entitle plaintiffs and class members to punitive or
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE FALSE
INFORMATION SUBCLASS FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
85. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
84, inclusive.
86. As set forth above, defendants published false and defamatory information concerning the
status of unlawful detainer actions against plaintiffs and class members. In doing so,
defendants acted with malice and willful intent to injure within the meaning of Civil Code §
1785.32 and, accordingly, may bring a defamation claim.
87. The reports referred to plaintiffs and class members by name, were made of and concerning
plaintiffs and class members, and were so understood by those who read the reports.
88. On each such occasion, defendants defamed plaintiffs and class members by falsely stating that
they had unlawful detainer actions which were pending, or which had been resolved in favor of
22
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
the lessor, or that plaintiffs and class members owed a particular sum of money to the lessor, or
had been “evicted.”
89. Such statements were libelous on their face. Such statements clearly conveyed the tenants
were “deadbeats” who were properly removed from the premises for violating the lease or not
paying the rent and further convey that a court had adjudicated the allegations as being proper
(or at least had not dismissed the allegations as being improper).
90. Each time a landlord obtained an eviction report from defendants which contained the false and
defamatory information regarding plaintiffs and class members constituted a separate and
distinct violation. Plaintiffs and class members are not aware of the existence of each and
every such defamatory publication committed by defendants over the years and by the exercise
of reasonable diligence could not have been so aware. However, plaintiffs are informed and
believe, and thereupon allege, that while numerous defamatory publications occurred over
years, at least one such publication occurred with respect to each plaintiff and each class
member either: a) within the last year or b) before the last year but which was not discovered or
reasonable discoverable prior to the last year.
91. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members were denied housing due to the existence of the false and defamatory
information reported by defendants, all to their further special damage in an amount to be
shown according to proof.
92. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained loss of reputation, severe emotional and
23
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
psychological distress, anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are
entitled to compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof.
93. The aforementioned acts of defendants constituted malice, oppression and fraud within the
meaning of Civil Code § 3294, and thereby entitle plaintiffs and class members to punitive or
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE FALSE
INFORMATION SUBCLASS FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY—FALSE
LIGHT—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
94. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
93, inclusive.
95. As set forth above, defendants reported false information concerning the status of unlawful
detainer actions against plaintiffs and class members. In doing so, defendants acted with
malice and willful intent to injure within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.32 and,
accordingly, may bring an invasion of privacy claim.
96. On each such occasion, defendants invaded the privacy of plaintiffs and class members without
their consent by stating that they had unlawful detainer actions which were pending, or which
had been resolved in favor of the lessor, or that plaintiffs and class members owed a particular
sum of money to the lessor, or had been “evicted.”
97. Such publications were libelous on their face and placed plaintiffs and class members in a false
light before the public because they clearly conveyed that tenants were “deadbeats” who were
properly removed from the premises for violating the lease or not paying the rent and further
convey that a court had adjudicated the allegations as being proper (or at least had not
24
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
dismissed the allegations as being improper). Such statements were offensive and
objectionable to plaintiffs and class members and would have been to a reasonable person of
ordinary sensibilities.
98. Each time a landlord obtained an eviction report from defendants which contained the false
information regarding plaintiffs and class members constituted a separate and distinct “false
light” violation. Plaintiffs and class members are not aware of the existence of each and every
such “false light” publication committed by defendants over the years and by the exercise of
reasonable diligence could not have been so aware. However, plaintiffs are informed and
believe, and thereupon allege, that while numerous “false light” publications occurred over
years, at least one such publication occurred with respect to each plaintiff and each class
member either: a) within the last year or b) before the last year but which was not discovered or
reasonable discoverable prior to the last year.
99. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs and
class members were denied housing due to the existence of the “false light” information
reported by defendants, all to their further special damage in an amount to be shown according
to proof.
100. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained loss of reputation, severe emotional and
psychological distress, anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are
entitled to compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof.
25
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
101. The aforementioned acts of defendants constituted malice, oppression and fraud within the
meaning of Civil Code § 3294, and thereby entitle plaintiffs and class members to punitive or
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE IN
FORMA PAUPERIS SUBCLASS FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY—PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
102. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 101, inclusive.
103. As set forth above, defendants reported that plaintiffs and class members were granted in
forma pauperis status in connection with the unlawful detainer actions. In doing so, defendants
acted with malice and willful intent to injure within the meaning of Civil Code § 1785.32 and,
accordingly, may bring an invasion of privacy claim.
104. On each such occasion, defendants invaded the privacy of plaintiffs and class members
without their consent by stating that they had received in forma pauperis status.
105. Each of these disclosures was a public disclosure to a large number of people in that
defendants have thousands of members who can access their database and obtain eviction
reports.
106. The facts disclosed were private matters which plaintiffs and class members were entitled
to keep private in that the application for and granting of in forma pauperis status is a
confidential proceeding between the applicant and the court.
107. This invasion of plaintiffs and class members’ privacy was offensive and objectionable to
plaintiffs and class members and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
26
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
108. Each time a landlord obtained an eviction report from defendants which contained the
private information regarding plaintiffs and class members constituted a separate and distinct
privacy violation. Plaintiffs and class members are not aware of the existence of each and
every such publication of private facts committed by defendants over the years and by the
exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been so aware. However, plaintiffs are
informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that while numerous publications of private facts
occurred over years, at least one such publication occurred with respect to each plaintiff and
each class member either: a) within the last year or b) before the last year but which was not
discovered or reasonable discoverable prior to the last year.
109. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs
and class members were denied housing due to the publication of private facts by defendants,
all to their further special damage in an amount to be shown according to proof.
110. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained loss of reputation, severe emotional and
psychological distress, anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are
entitled to compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof.
111. The aforementioned acts of defendants constituted malice, oppression and fraud within the
meaning of Civil Code § 3294, and thereby entitle plaintiffs and class members to punitive or
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AND MEMBERS OF THE IN
FORMA PAUPERIS SUBCLASS FOR VIOLATION OF THE INFORMATION
PRACTICES ACT—AGAINST DEFENDANTS
27
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
112. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 111, inclusive.
113. As set forth above, defendants intentionally disclosed information not otherwise public, to
wit: that plaintiffs and class members were granted in forma pauperis status in connection with
the unlawful detainer actions. Defendants knew or should have known that such information
was obtained from “personal information maintained by a state agency,” or “from records
within a system,” within the meaning of the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA) and
specifically Civil Code § 1798.53.
114. Each time a landlord obtained an eviction report from defendants which contained the
nonpublic information regarding plaintiffs and class members’ in forma pauperis status
constituted a separate and distinct violation of the IPA. Plaintiffs and class members are not
aware of the existence of each and every such violation committed by defendants over the years
and by the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been so aware. However, plaintiffs
are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that while numerous violations occurred over
years, at least one such violation occurred with respect to each plaintiff and each class member
either: a) within the last year or b) before the last year but which was not discovered or
reasonable discoverable prior to the last year.
115. As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above, plaintiffs
and class members were denied housing due to the existence of the nonpublic information
reported by defendants, all to their further special damage in an amount to be shown according
to proof.
28
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
116. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of defendants as set forth above,
plaintiffs and class members have sustained loss of reputation, severe emotional and
psychological distress, anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering, for which they are
entitled to compensation in an amount to be shown according to proof.
117. Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to receive exemplary damages of not less than
$2,500 for each violation pursuant to Civil Code § 1798.53.
118. The aforementioned acts of defendants constituted malice, oppression and fraud within the
meaning of Civil Code § 3294, and thereby entitle plaintiffs and class members to punitive or
exemplary damages in an amount according to proof.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION BY ALL PLAINTIFFS AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND BY MEMBERS OF ALL CLASSES FOR
UNFAIR COMPETITION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
119. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 118, inclusive.
120. Commencing prior to June 1, 1997, but continuing on that date and continuing thereafter,
defendants have engaged in, are engaged in, and propose to engage in unfair competition as
that term is defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200, which includes any
“unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” “unfair, deceptive, untrue or
misleading advertising,” and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section
17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.
29
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
121. The conduct of defendants as set forth above was an unlawful business act or practice
within the meaning of section 17200 because defendants violated the Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act and the Information Practices Act.
122. The conduct of defendants as set forth above was a “fraudulent business act or practice”
and deceptive or misleading advertisement within the meaning of section 17200 because it was
likely to deceive members of the general public that the plaintiffs and class members had been
evicted, owed money to a landlord, violated the terms of their leases, or were found by a court
to have committed such acts.
123. The conduct of defendants as set forth above was an unfair business act or practice within
the meaning of section 17200. The fairness of business conduct is determined by weighing the
practice’s impact on consumers and members of the general public against the business
justification for the conduct. Here, defendants had no legitimate business justification for
reporting stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information concerning
the plaintiffs and class members. Defendants had no legitimate business justification for
reporting unlawful detainer actions which the Legislature has determined are not “relevant”
and not legitimately considered by landlords—namely, those in which the lessor was not the
prevailing party. Defendants had no legitimate business justification for reporting the fact that
plaintiffs and class members had obtained in forma pauperis status. Defendants had no
legitimate business justification for defaming plaintiffs and class members, for casting them in
a false light, and for disclosing private facts and nonpublic facts protected by the IPA.
124. By contrast, the damage wreaked by defendants’ conduct was substantial, both on an
individual level and to society as a whole. Obviously reporting false or inaccurate information
30
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
concerning the status of an unlawful detainer action is devastating to the prospective tenant’s
chances of obtaining housing. But even truthfully reporting unlawful detainer actions in which
the landlord did not prevail—in other words, which were meritless—harms prospective tenants
by resulting in tenant blacklisting and imposing unfair and unnecessary hardships on tenants
seeking rental housing. Prospective tenants are also harmed by disclosure of the fact they
obtained in forma pauperis status since such status would be a “red flag” alerting landlords that
the tenants are probably on public assistance. This type of information would not normally be
disclosed in a typical consumer credit report. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis
that the renter’s source of income is a public assistance program. (Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a).)
125. In engaging in conduct that constitutes unfair competition, each defendant has acquired
money or property from members of the general public. Specifically, defendants have acquired
the payments from member landlords for membership and eviction reports.
126. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203 and section 17204, plaintiffs are
empowered to act as a Private Attorney General to enjoin such conduct in the future, to compel
each defendant to restore to identified victims any money or property that it may have acquired
as a result of any act which constitutes unfair competition and, should this class action be
certified, to compel defendants to disgorge profits obtained as a result of any act which
constitutes unfair competition.
127. It is impossible for plaintiffs to determine the exact amount of money due to the general
public without a detailed review of defendants’ financial books and records. Accordingly,
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an accounting and/or the appointment of a receiver.
31
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
128. The aforementioned business practices of defendants are likely to continue and therefore
will continue to violate the law and deceive the public.
129. Defendants should be enjoined pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203 to alter
their policies and procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information reported
and specifically to remove from eviction reports all reference to the aforementioned unlawful
detainer actions involving plaintiffs as well as similarly stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate,
incomplete and misleading information from the eviction reports of class members; to alter
their policies and procedures to respect the confidentiality of in forma pauperis status
proceedings and specifically to remove from eviction reports all reference to the in forma
pauperis status of plaintiffs and class members; and to alter their policies and procedures to
report unlawful detainer actions only when the lessor is the prevailing party and specifically to
remove from eviction reports all reference to the unlawful detainers involving plaintiffs and
class members.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs request trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment on all causes of action against defendants as
follows:
1. For a declaration of the rights and liabilities of the parties, including a determination that
plaintiffs and class members have the right to have the following information removed from their
eviction reports: stale, obsolete, false, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information,
32
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
disclosure of the granting of in forma pauperis status, and unlawful detainer actions in which the
lessor was not the prevailing party;
2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.31 (b) and
Business & Professions Code § 17203 and restraining and enjoining defendants from continuing
the violation of the CCRAA and acts of unfair competition set forth above and requiring
defendants to take any acts needed to prevent further violations, including the deletion of improper
information from plaintiffs and class member’s consumer credit reports;
3. For an order requiring defendants to provide an accounting of all moneys which they may have
received from identifiable victims as a result of the acts and practices found to constitute unfair
competition under Business and Professions Code § 17200.
4. For an order that defendants make restitution by restoring to identifiable victims all funds
acquired by the acts of unfair competition set forth above, including payments acquired by
defendants from member landlords, and all additional orders necessary to accomplish this purpose,
pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203;
5. Should a class action be certified, for disgorgement and distribution of any moneys recovered
on behalf of the general public, or members of the classes, via fluid recovery or cy pres recovery
where necessary to prevent defendants from retaining the benefits of their wrongful conduct as
provided in California v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 460 and People v. Thomas Shelton
Powers, M.D. Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 330.
6. For general and special damages, including consequential damages, on the first through eighth
causes of action according to proof;
33
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
7. For statutory penalties of $5,000 per violation pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2) (B) on
the first through third causes of action;
8. For statutory penalties of at least $2,500 per violation pursuant to Civil Code § 1798.53 on the
eighth cause of action;
9. For interest on the sum of damages and amount to be restored to plaintiffs on the first through
eighth causes of action as allowed by law;
10. For punitive damages on the first through eighth causes of action in an amount appropriate to
punish defendants for their wrongful conduct and set an example for others;
11. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (d), pursuant to Civil Code §
1798.53, pursuant to the Private Attorney General doctrine provision of Code of Civil Procedure §
1021.5, pursuant to the “common fund” doctrine, and pursuant to the “substantial benefit”
doctrine.
12. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
13. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
DATED: June 14, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
By ______________________
JEFFREY WILENS
Attorney for Plaintiffs
34
___________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT