1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
`Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 120371)
`Macy Wilens, Esq. (State Bar No. 328204)
`18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
`Yorba Linda, CA 92886
`
`
`
`714-854-7205
`714-854-7206 (fax)
`jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
`macy@lakeshorelaw.org
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/25/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: DAEJA ROGERS
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CGC-24-614179
`
`) Case No.
`RYAN CONNOR GREENWALD,
`) Assigned for All Purposes to:
`
`
`
`
`) Hon.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`) Dept.
`
`
`
`
`) Complaint Filed:
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC, ) COMPLAINT FOR
`) 1. Violation of California Consumer
`437 HILL MIDRISE, LLC,
`
`) Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Civil
`and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
`) Code § 17825.25 (a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff RYAN CONNOR GREENWALD, an individual, brings this action on behalf of
`himself. Plaintiff was a resident of the state of California during the relevant time
`
`frame and is a competent adult.
`2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that Defendant COLUMBIA
`DEBT RECOVERY, LLC (CDR), is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint,
`
`a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Everett, Washington,
`
`that does extensive business in the State of California.
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`
`
`3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that Defendant 437 HILL
`MIDRISE, LLC (437 Hill), is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint, was a
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
`
`California and which does business in the State of California.
`4. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein as
`DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
`
`names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities
`
`when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of
`
`these fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the
`
`occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s damages as 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.
`5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, 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 alter ego of each of the
`
`remaining defendants, was the successor in interest or predecessor in interest, and
`
`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.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT
`
`REPORTING AGENCIES ACT, CIVIL CODE § 1785. ET. SEQ., AGAINST
`
`DEFENDANTS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE OR MISLEADING CREDIT
`
`INFORMATION
`
`6. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
`through 5, inclusive.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7. California Civil Code § 1785.25 (a) provides: “A person shall not furnish information
`on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the
`
`person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” This
`
`statute is part of the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.
`8. Defendants CDR and 437 Hill are “persons” and Plaintiff is a consumer within the
`meaning of section 1785.3 (b) of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
`
`Act in that he is a natural individual and defendants are companies.
`9. On or about December 2, 2019, Plaintiff’s former friends, Sara Peterka and Katherine
`Peterka (Peterka sisters), wanted to rent an apartment at “Trademark Apartments” in
`
`Los Angeles, California, which was owned by Defendant 437 Hill. Trademark
`
`Apartments management advised them that they did not qualify unless another
`
`person also signed the lease, so they requested Plaintiff’s assistance.
`10. Plaintiff met with management at Trademark and explained he had no desire to live
`in the apartment and already had a home, but would help his friends if it was possible
`
`to do so without making him a guarantor of the tenants. Management explained that
`
`it was not necessary for him to sign a personal guaranty, but if he signed as a tenant
`
`even though he was not going to live there, then he would not be responsible for their
`
`financial obligations beyond the term of the one-year lease.
`11. This seemed a reasonable proposition to Plaintiff, so he agreed to it. At the direction
`of management, he signed the lease as a “tenant” as did the Peterka sisters. The lease
`
`went into effect for one year from November 30, 2019, although Plaintiff did not sign
`
`it until December 3, 2019.
`12. Of course, this was a scant few months before the Covid-19 pandemic, so things did
`not develop as anticipated.
`13. After Plaintiff signed the lease, he left and never resided at the Trademark Apartments,
`a fact well known and approved by management.
`14. The Peterka sisters started to make their rent payments but apparently stopped paying
`after March 2020.
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`15. The sisters applied for Covid-19 rental relief and eventually were granted almost
`$53,000 which was paid to management. This covered their tenancy from April 2020
`
`to September 2021. In other words, Trademark was paid in full for rent through the
`
`entire period of the one-year lease as well as another 9-10 months of the period of time
`
`during which the sisters were holdover tenants after their lease expired.
`16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the sisters remained
`holdover tenants until approximately July 2022.
`17. Defendants claim the rent for that time period which is still owed was approximately
`$30,000.
`18. Inasmuch as Plaintiff was only responsible for rent for the one-year lease term, he was
`not responsible for any rent after November 2020 and therefore none of the $30,000
`
`Defendants claim is still owed is owed by Plaintiff.
`19. It appears that Trademark was unable to recover the back rent owed from the sisters,
`so it decided to pressure Plaintiff to pay it, despite the fact he had no legal obligation
`
`to do so. First, they harassed him with correspondence from management and then
`
`they retained Defendant CDR to try to collect the debt.
`20. In or about November 2023, Defendant CDR, at the specific instruction of and with
`authorization from Defendant 437 Hill, furnished inaccurate and incomplete
`
`information to consumer reporting agencies about the rental debt. Defendant CDR
`
`relied entirely on Defendant 437 Hill to inform it how much rental debt was owed and
`
`by whom (i.e., that Plaintiff owed it). The information furnished included the
`
`inaccurate and incomplete statement that Plaintiff owed $32,597 in unpaid rent from
`
`the subject property. This information was last updated and furnished by Defendant
`
`CDR in March 2024. This information is set to remain on Plaintiff’s record until
`
`November 2030. The information is false and inaccurate because Plaintiff does not
`
`and did not owe any money in relation to the unpaid rent for the reasons outlined
`
`above.
`21. Defendants knew or should have known the information they furnished was
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`inaccurate or incomplete.
`22. As a result of Defendants’ actions, one or more of the credit reporting agencies
`continues to falsely report the status of the account on each Plaintiff’s credit report
`
`through the current date and likely will continue to do so in the future.
`23. Consequently, all creditors or potential creditors who obtain credit reports about
`Plaintiff will receive reports containing the inaccurate information furnished by
`
`Defendants and this inaccurate and incomplete information will be included in the
`
`calculations made by the reporting agencies to generate credit scores.
`24. Accordingly, Defendants violated Civil Code § 1785.25 (a) each time they furnished
`inaccurate or incomplete information about the account to a reporting agency.
`25. Plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of the violation of Civil Code § 1785.25 (a)
`as set forth above in that his credit score and credit rating was adversely impacted by
`
`the false reporting of the debt. Before this information was reported on his credit
`
`report, his score was around 772, after the information was reported, his score
`
`dropped about 86 points to 686. Plaintiff has no other negative marks being reported
`
`besides this collection account, meaning the reporting of this collection account was
`
`the main reason for the credit drop.
`26. In addition, Plaintiff suffered actual damages in the form of emotional distress, pain
`and suffering, humiliation, and injury to reputation.
`27. Plaintiff has also had to divert time from his busy work schedule to attempt to remedy
`the harm caused by Defendants’ illegal conduct.
`28. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2)
`(A) including court costs, loss of wages, attorney's fees and pain and suffering in an
`
`amount according to proof.
`29. Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damage pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (a) (2)
`(B) in the amount of $5,000 against Defendants because each violation was a willful
`
`violation in that Defendants intentionally and knowingly furnished inaccurate or
`
`incomplete information to the consumer reporting agencies.
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`30. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (b). The only
`way for the inaccurate or incomplete information to be removed from Plaintiff’s credit
`
`reports is for Defendants to be enjoined to remove the information it furnished.
`
`Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, this matter must be filed in the Unlimited
`
`Jurisdiction court (Code of Civil Procedure § 580 (b) (2).)
`
`REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment on all causes of action against Defendants
`
`as follows:
`1. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants
`from furnishing or publishing information pertaining to the accounts to consumer
`
`reporting agencies or in consumer reports associated with Plaintiff and requiring
`
`Defendants to request the consumer reporting agencies to remove inaccurate or
`
`incomplete information that was previously furnished to them from Plaintiff’s
`
`consumer file;
`2. For actual damages on the first causes of action in the amount of $50,000;
`3. For punitive or exemplary damages on the first causes of action in the amount of
`$5,000;
`4. For interest on the sum of money awarded as damages or restitution;
`5. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1785.31 (d) and (f), pursuant
`to the Private Attorney General doctrine in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, pursuant
`
`to the “common fund” doctrine, and pursuant to the “substantial benefit” doctrine.
`6. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
`7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
`DATED: April 25, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`_/s/_Jeffrey Wilens____
`
`JEFFREY WILENS, ESQ.
`MACY WILENS, ESQ.
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`