   VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT             CLASS ALLEGATIONS   11.  For a small fee, any person or entity can access all the information in the  Fraud Alert database on any consumer at anytime using a website maintained by  the Defendant.   12.  Thus, consumers that have ever applied for a loan with a Fraud Alert  member are included in this database without their knowledge or consent,  including, without limitation, politicians, law enforcement officials, judges,  clergymen, high ranking military officers and other high profile individuals.  13.  Unlike Equifax, TranUnion and Experian, MERS does not have a policy in  place to prevent the disclose of consumers reports of high profile individuals,  indeed very few people outside the mortgage industry even know of the existence  of the secret database thereby making it ripe for exploitation for nefarious and  other illegal reasons such as identity theft.   14.  MERS, as a matter of company policy, will never disclose the contents of  the consumer’s file to the consumer or the source of the information.   16.  In or around March 2010 MERS designed and distributed the flyer to  participants in the mortgage industry attached hereto as Exhibit “A” that clearly  shows it views itself as a consumer reporting agency covered by the FCRA.  Q. Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) apply to the  accuracy of the information referenced by MERS®  FraudALERT? A. Yes, because information obtained from MERS® FraudALERT  may be used by members to make loan and employment decisions. In  addition, under the FCRA, MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS) will respond to  requests to correct information used by MERS® FraudALERT. (Exhibit “A” p.2)   18.  MERS has a secure portal (https://web1.zixmail.net/s/login?b=mersinc) 5 to  allow a consumer to dispute information in the file electronically but will not  disclose the information in the file to the consumer.   19.  Plaintiff filed a class action complaint currently pending before this court  styled Ronald Sciortino on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.  Nationstar Mortgage, LLC., case no.: 1:12-CV-01563-AT-WEJ wherein inter alia Defendant Nationstar claims to be a debt collector for Fannie Mae.   20.  On or about March 1, 2012 Plaintiff filed another Class action complaint  currently pending before this court styled Ronald Sciortino on behalf of himself   and all others similarly situated v. Barrett Daffin Frappie Levin & Brock, LLP,  case no.: 1:12-CV-1322-AT-WEJ wherein inter alia Defendant claims it is a debt  collector and that Nationstar is the creditor to whom the debt was owed, not Fannie  Mae.  22.  Defendant responded by on May 18, 2012 stating the Plaintiff should  contact his servicer and did not release all the information in the Plaintiff’s  file as requested or disclose the identity of each person (including each end- user identified under section 1681e (e)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act)  that procured a consumer report— (i) for employment purposes, during the  2-year period preceding the date on which the request was made; or (ii) for  any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the  request was made.    23.  Plaintiff requested his consumer file from MERS on June 5, 2012 through  the internet secure portal website listed above.  See attached Exhibit “D”  incorporated herein by reference.   25.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of  this Complaint, and incorporate the same herein by this specific reference as  though set forth herein in full.   27.  Defendant failed to disclose, upon request of the Plaintiff, all information in  the consumer’s file at the time of the request or the source of the information.   29.  By reason of the conduct alleged herein Defendant willfully did not comply  with 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a) and is liable to the Plaintiff for actual damages of up to  one thousand dollars ($1,000), punitive damages and the costs of the action  together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the Court pursuant to 15  U.S.C. § 1681N(a).  30.            The named Plaintiff and others similarly situated to him, repeat and reallege  the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint,  and incorporate the  same herein by reference as though set forth herein in full.  32.            Plaintiffs seek class action certification and are authorized to maintain this   suit as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1);  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).   33.  The persons included in each Class set out above are so numerous that   joinder of all parties is impractical.     34.            Upon information and belief there are more than one thousand (1,000)  members of the proposed class.  More precise information concerning the size and  identification of class members will be obtained through discovery and set forth in  Plaintiffs subsequent Motion for Class Certification.   36.  The claims of class representative Ronald Sciortino are typical of the claims   of the proposed class.   37.  The questions of law and fact which are common among members of   the class are whether Defendant violated the FCRA by not disclosing all  information in the consumer file at the time of the request of the Plaintiff and  putative class members and/or not disclose the identity each person (including each  end-user identified under section 1681e (e)(1) of this title) that procured a  consumer report— (i) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period  preceding the date on which the request was made; or (ii) for any other purpose,  during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request was made.   38.  The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to any other method of fair adjudication of the class presented.   40.  The representative party and their counsel will take those actions necessary   to protect the interests of the class members.   41.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in prosecuting complex  litigation and consumer protection statutes.   42. The basis for class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is that the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a   risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of   the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants.  43.            The basis for class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is that adjudication with respect to individual members of the class would be, as a practical matter,  dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications.   7. According to the Defendant, it maintains a consumer “file” 3  on more than  sixty three million (63,000,000) “consumers” as that term is defined in the FCRA. (See Exhibit “A” p. 1 Seamless MERS Integration)   9.  Unbeknownst to residential mortgage applicants, when a mortgage is applied  for with a Fraud Alert member, regardless of whether or not it has been approved,  the mortgage application information is uploaded to MERS to be included in its  Fraud Alert database and a consumer file is created on that person or if ones exists  the information is merged into the existing file.    