Docstoc

Complaint

Document Sample
Complaint Powered By Docstoc
					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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:20
posted:12/12/2011
language:Latin
pages:34