Preview
oY A WH PB YW YD
wee aa
SI A ww FF BH | Swe
18
Nick Miletak ~ In Pro Se
14745-Conway Avenue
San Jose,.California 95124
408-533-5689-mobile
nmiletak@msn.com
FILED
(THI AUG 31 ' A tl: 02
SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
DOWNTOWN BRANCH
|| NICK MILETAK,
Plaintiff,
VS.
HOMEAGLOW, INC; AND DOES 1-100
INCLUSIVE
Defendants,
Case No.:
21CV38s6es72
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. TWO (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA|
CIVIL CODE § 1786.16
LIMITED
$20000
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1Co wm YN DAH FF WHY
ee Se a i
Co eo YN DW RF YW HY |
i r
Plaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this claim for damages and respectfully alleges as
follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an individual consumer complaint against Homeaglow, Inc., (hereinafter
“Defendant”). The Defendant is an on-demand gig company providing a platform connecting
customers and cleaners seeking work. In order to service customers, the Defendant hires workers
to aid in providing home cleaning services to their clients.
2. The Plaintiff alleges that he completed the necessary steps to become a cleaner
with the Defendant around June 4, 2021. During the onboarding process the Defendant failed to
provide and obtain a compliant consent disclosure signed by the Plaintiff prior to procuring an
investigative consumer report (hereinafter “ICR”).
3. On June 11, 2021 the Defendant procured a background report, with the Plaintiff
as the subject of the report, from Choice Screening order number: 2747440
4, Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that he was successfully onboarded with the
Defendant when the Homeaglow, Inc., received a clear background report from Choice Screening
on June 11, 2021 their background vendor.
5. Around June 16, 2021 the Plaintiff emailed the Defendant requesting for a copy of
the background report procured.
6. On June 17, 2021 at 9:14 a.m. the Plaintiff received a reply from the Defendant
from email emmatcp484570@homeaglow.com responding to the Plaintiff’s request for the
background report stating “As for the results of the background check, I will be unable to send a
copy to you as they are company propriety.”
7. The California Civil Code also known as the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agency Act (hereinafter “ICRAA”) §1786.10-1786.40 et seq. clearly requires that the requestor
of the report (Defendant) provides the subject of the report a consent disclosure that contains the
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2Oo Oe NAH UV FF Ww NY
NY NN NY NY N NN NY Be Be Be Re Be Be me Be
cI AU BBN EF SoD we NI DAH PF BW YB SF DS
' T
name, address and telephone number of the background reporting agency to be used in preparation
of the report prior to procuring the ICR.
The ICRAA also requires that the consent disclosure contains a check box option for
California consumers to request a copy of the background report if a background report is
procured. It also provides that the recipient of the report shall send a copy of the report to the
consumer within three business days that the report is received by the requestor. The Defendant
failed to provide a consent disclosure to the Plaintiff before procuring the June 11, 2021
background report from Choice Screening,
(1) Provide the consumer a means by which
the consumer may indicate on a written form, by means of a
box to check, that the consumer wishes to receive a copy of
any report that is prepared. If the consumer wishes to receive
@ copy of the report, the recipient of the report shall send a
copy of the report to the consumer within three business days
of the date that the report is provided to the recipient, who
may contract with any other entity to send a copy to the
consumer. The notice to request the report may be contained
on either the disclosure form, as required by subdivision (a),
or a separate consent form. The copy of the report shall
contain the name, address, and telephone number of the
person who issued the report and how to contact them.
8. The JCRAA was molded after the FCRA in many respects. The JCRAA was
enacted by the California Legislature with the following declaration:
The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) Investigative consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in collecting,
assembling, evaluating, compiling, reporting, transmitting, transferring, or communicating
information on consumers for employment and insurance purposes, and for purposes relating to
the hiring of dwelling units, subpoenas and court orders, licensure, and other lawful purposes.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
3So eo rQN DH WH F&F WN
ee =
RBNRRRPBREBRSGESERDAEBDTRBERTS
i 7
(b) There is a need to ensure that investigative consumer reporting agencies exercise their
grave responsibilities with faimess, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.
(c) The crime of identity theft in this new computer era has exploded to become the
fastest growing white-collar crime in America.
(d) The unique nature of this crime means it can often go undetected for years without the
victim being aware his identity has been misused.
(©) Because notice of identity theft is critical before the victim can take steps to stop and
prosecute this crime, consumers are best protected if they are automatically given copies of any
investigative consumer reports made on them.
(f) It is the purpose of this title to require that investigative consumer reporting agencies
adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for employment, insurance
information, and information relating to the hiring of dwelling units in a manner which is fair and
equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper
utilization of the information in accordance with the requirements of this title.
(g) The Legislature hereby intends to regulate investigative consumer reporting agencies
pursuant to this title in a manner which will best protect the interests of the people of the State of
California.
9. The California legislature included in the statutory scheme a series of due-process-
like protections that impose strict procedural rules on both ICRA’s and users of investigative
consumer reports, Defendant has thwarted the legislative purpose of the ICRAA by engaging in
unlawful practices even after being informed of serious violations of the ICRAA & CCRAA that
appear to place its business interests above the rights of the consumer.
10. Specifically, since being alerted of the violations on June 17, 2021 by the Plaintiff,
the Defendant has continued their unlawful practices of procuring background reports without
first providing employment candidates with a compliant consent disclosure. The Defendant has
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
4completely ignored the Plaintiff attempts to establish dialogue in hopes of avoiding litigation such
as initiating arbitration. The Defendant has been willful in their disregard of the statute.
PARTIES
ll. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa
Clara.
12. Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., is a domestic corporation incorporated under file
number 5797283 in the State of Delaware and incorporated on August 4, 2015
13. Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., is registered with the California Secretary of State as
a foreign corporation under file C3877283 and has a principal place of business located at 600
Congress Avenue, Floor 14, Austin, Texas, 78701 and at all relevant times mentioned herein
conducted and continues to conduct substantial and regular business throughout California.
14. According to its website Homeaglow boasts, “Experience Five-Start Clean. The
easiest way to find and book your perfect cleaner. Only top-rated cleaners, Affordable as ever,
Convenient, online booking.” The preceding information was found at the Defendant’s website
at: https://homeaglow.com
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because they are residents
of and/or doing business in the State of California.
16. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a) of the California
code of Civil Procedure because the Defendant resides in this county, and the injuries alleged
herein occurred in this county.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
17. Defendant is one several on demand gig companies using a mobile app or website
to connect customers and home cleaners and is a user of ICR’s provided by Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agency (hereinafter “ICRA”). Such companies utilizing ICR’s in
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
5connection with employment screening are subject to rules established in the ICRAA.
18. To carry out its business activities and employment screening objectives, the
Defendant enters into contracts with various vendors or ICRA’s to conduct background screening.
Additionally, the Defendant also engages in conducting background investigations independently
with no assistance from ICRA’s on an as needed basis.
19. The typical information gathered, and assembled by the Defendant on
employment candidates such as the Plaintiff includes a local criminal background check, national
criminal database data, state and local criminal records, and residential/address history associated
with social security number and date of birth, information relating to general character,
‘employment history, general reputation, personal characteristics, motor vehicle records, and
mode of living.
20. A criminal record can be the most significant component of a background check
and can often negatively impact a consumer’s application for employment or a consumer’s
employment. As a result, the ICRAA contains specific provisions that impose duties of special
care that both providers and users of such information must obey. Strict compliance is a
requirement of the ICRAA as was intended in the drafting of the legislation and clearly governs
the procedures that both ICRA’s and users of investigative consumer reports must take when
reporting or using public records in connection with employment.
21. The ICRAA requires that, in connection with the reporting of a public record,
unless the public records reported are completed and up to date, it must provide the consumer
with a specific notification “at the time” it provides the record to an employer. This duty is in
addition to the usual duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy’
standard.
The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak
22. Around June 4, 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment with the Defendant to
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
6Noe
Co md DA HW B® YD
become a cleaner through their web portal located at https:/Avww.homeaglow.com
23. Around June 11, 2021 the Plaintiff successfully onboarded with the Defendant
after Homeaglow received a background report procured from Choice Screening without first
providing the Plaintiff a compliant consent disclosure pursuant to California Civil Code §1786.16
24. On June 16, 2021 the Plaintiff emailed the Defendant requesting for a copy of the
background report procured by the Defendant.
25. Instead of complying with the ICRAA and sending a copy of the procured report
to the Plaintiff within three business days of receipt as required by §1786.16 on June 17, 2021 at
9:14 am. the Plaintiff received a reply from the Defendant from email
emma+cp484570@homeaglow.com responding to the Plaintiffs request for the background
report stating “As for the results of the background check, I will be unable to send a copy to you
as they are company propriety.”
26. On June 17, 2021 the Plaintiff alerted the Defendant of the two violations of
§1786.16 attempting to establish dialogue to reach an early resolution to the violations.
27. — Since alerting the Defendant of the Two (2) ICRAA violations the Defendant has
failed to respond by completely ignoring the Plaintiffs attempt resolve the continuing violations
by the Defendant.
. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
TWO (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE SECTION §1786.16
28. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.
29. Homeaglow, Inc., is a user of investigative consumer reports and MUST comply
with all provisions of the ICRAA to include section § 1786.16.
30. Atall times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
7Oo em NA HW BF WN
RYN NY NY NY NN KN NY Be Be Be ewe ew we ew em eB
SC WA A BR BN |= Soe ww NI DAH BF HW NH SK SC
by section § 1786.2 of the California Civil Code.
31. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned background reports were a
“consumer report” as that term is defined by section § 1786.2 of the California Civil Code.
32. Homeaglow, Inc’s., Two (2) violations of section § 1786.16 occurred because the
Defendant failed to provide a consent disclosure to the Plaintiff containing the name, address and
telephone number of the intended CRA and also a check box option allowing the Plaintiff to
request a copy of the report if procured by the Defendant.
33. The second violation occurred because the Defendant failed to send a copy of the
procured report to the Plaintiff within three business days of receipt of the report from Choice
Screening.
34. As aresult of Defendant’s, violations of § 1786.16 of the California Civil Code,
Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in a statutory amount of $20,000. California Civil Code section
§1786.50 address penalties for violations of sections §1786.10-1786.40 (ICRAA) as $10,000 or
actual damages per violation or whichever is greater.
The $10,000 per violation liability is supported by an opinion found in Poinsignon v.
Imperva, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60161, 2018 WL 1709942 where a District Court in the
Northern District of California correctly opined “ICRAA provides that a defendant is liable to a
consumer for “[a]any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the [defendants]
failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand ($10,000), whichever sum is greater.”
Cal. Civ. Code $1786.50(a)(1). Plaintiff does not claim actual damages. An individual plaintiff
who has not incurred any actual damages may still recover $10,000 in statutory damages.”
35. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $10,000 or actual damages per violation, statutory
damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from the Defendant, pursuant to § 1786.50.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against
Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., for the following requested relief:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
8. Actual damages;
. Statutory damages of $20,000;
Punitive damages;
9p Aw Pp
. Costs and reasonable attorneys” fees pursuant to California Civil Code section
§1786.50; and
E. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.
Date: August, 22, 2021 Nb , Kd 4
Nick Miletak — In Pro Se
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
9
Preview
oY A WH PB YW YD wee aa SI A ww FF BH | Swe 18 Nick Miletak ~ In Pro Se 14745-Conway Avenue San Jose,.California 95124 408-533-5689-mobile nmiletak@msn.com FILED (THI AUG 31 ' A tl: 02 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DOWNTOWN BRANCH || NICK MILETAK, Plaintiff, VS. HOMEAGLOW, INC; AND DOES 1-100 INCLUSIVE Defendants, Case No.: 21CV38s6es72 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. TWO (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA| CIVIL CODE § 1786.16 LIMITED $20000 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1Co wm YN DAH FF WHY ee Se a i Co eo YN DW RF YW HY | i r Plaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this claim for damages and respectfully alleges as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an individual consumer complaint against Homeaglow, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendant”). The Defendant is an on-demand gig company providing a platform connecting customers and cleaners seeking work. In order to service customers, the Defendant hires workers to aid in providing home cleaning services to their clients. 2. The Plaintiff alleges that he completed the necessary steps to become a cleaner with the Defendant around June 4, 2021. During the onboarding process the Defendant failed to provide and obtain a compliant consent disclosure signed by the Plaintiff prior to procuring an investigative consumer report (hereinafter “ICR”). 3. On June 11, 2021 the Defendant procured a background report, with the Plaintiff as the subject of the report, from Choice Screening order number: 2747440 4, Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that he was successfully onboarded with the Defendant when the Homeaglow, Inc., received a clear background report from Choice Screening on June 11, 2021 their background vendor. 5. Around June 16, 2021 the Plaintiff emailed the Defendant requesting for a copy of the background report procured. 6. On June 17, 2021 at 9:14 a.m. the Plaintiff received a reply from the Defendant from email emmatcp484570@homeaglow.com responding to the Plaintiff’s request for the background report stating “As for the results of the background check, I will be unable to send a copy to you as they are company propriety.” 7. The California Civil Code also known as the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act (hereinafter “ICRAA”) §1786.10-1786.40 et seq. clearly requires that the requestor of the report (Defendant) provides the subject of the report a consent disclosure that contains the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2Oo Oe NAH UV FF Ww NY NY NN NY NY N NN NY Be Be Be Re Be Be me Be cI AU BBN EF SoD we NI DAH PF BW YB SF DS ' T name, address and telephone number of the background reporting agency to be used in preparation of the report prior to procuring the ICR. The ICRAA also requires that the consent disclosure contains a check box option for California consumers to request a copy of the background report if a background report is procured. It also provides that the recipient of the report shall send a copy of the report to the consumer within three business days that the report is received by the requestor. The Defendant failed to provide a consent disclosure to the Plaintiff before procuring the June 11, 2021 background report from Choice Screening, (1) Provide the consumer a means by which the consumer may indicate on a written form, by means of a box to check, that the consumer wishes to receive a copy of any report that is prepared. If the consumer wishes to receive @ copy of the report, the recipient of the report shall send a copy of the report to the consumer within three business days of the date that the report is provided to the recipient, who may contract with any other entity to send a copy to the consumer. The notice to request the report may be contained on either the disclosure form, as required by subdivision (a), or a separate consent form. The copy of the report shall contain the name, address, and telephone number of the person who issued the report and how to contact them. 8. The JCRAA was molded after the FCRA in many respects. The JCRAA was enacted by the California Legislature with the following declaration: The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) Investigative consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in collecting, assembling, evaluating, compiling, reporting, transmitting, transferring, or communicating information on consumers for employment and insurance purposes, and for purposes relating to the hiring of dwelling units, subpoenas and court orders, licensure, and other lawful purposes. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3So eo rQN DH WH F&F WN ee = RBNRRRPBREBRSGESERDAEBDTRBERTS i 7 (b) There is a need to ensure that investigative consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with faimess, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy. (c) The crime of identity theft in this new computer era has exploded to become the fastest growing white-collar crime in America. (d) The unique nature of this crime means it can often go undetected for years without the victim being aware his identity has been misused. (©) Because notice of identity theft is critical before the victim can take steps to stop and prosecute this crime, consumers are best protected if they are automatically given copies of any investigative consumer reports made on them. (f) It is the purpose of this title to require that investigative consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for employment, insurance information, and information relating to the hiring of dwelling units in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of the information in accordance with the requirements of this title. (g) The Legislature hereby intends to regulate investigative consumer reporting agencies pursuant to this title in a manner which will best protect the interests of the people of the State of California. 9. The California legislature included in the statutory scheme a series of due-process- like protections that impose strict procedural rules on both ICRA’s and users of investigative consumer reports, Defendant has thwarted the legislative purpose of the ICRAA by engaging in unlawful practices even after being informed of serious violations of the ICRAA & CCRAA that appear to place its business interests above the rights of the consumer. 10. Specifically, since being alerted of the violations on June 17, 2021 by the Plaintiff, the Defendant has continued their unlawful practices of procuring background reports without first providing employment candidates with a compliant consent disclosure. The Defendant has COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 4completely ignored the Plaintiff attempts to establish dialogue in hopes of avoiding litigation such as initiating arbitration. The Defendant has been willful in their disregard of the statute. PARTIES ll. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa Clara. 12. Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., is a domestic corporation incorporated under file number 5797283 in the State of Delaware and incorporated on August 4, 2015 13. Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., is registered with the California Secretary of State as a foreign corporation under file C3877283 and has a principal place of business located at 600 Congress Avenue, Floor 14, Austin, Texas, 78701 and at all relevant times mentioned herein conducted and continues to conduct substantial and regular business throughout California. 14. According to its website Homeaglow boasts, “Experience Five-Start Clean. The easiest way to find and book your perfect cleaner. Only top-rated cleaners, Affordable as ever, Convenient, online booking.” The preceding information was found at the Defendant’s website at: https://homeaglow.com JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because they are residents of and/or doing business in the State of California. 16. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a) of the California code of Civil Procedure because the Defendant resides in this county, and the injuries alleged herein occurred in this county. STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. Defendant is one several on demand gig companies using a mobile app or website to connect customers and home cleaners and is a user of ICR’s provided by Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency (hereinafter “ICRA”). Such companies utilizing ICR’s in COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5connection with employment screening are subject to rules established in the ICRAA. 18. To carry out its business activities and employment screening objectives, the Defendant enters into contracts with various vendors or ICRA’s to conduct background screening. Additionally, the Defendant also engages in conducting background investigations independently with no assistance from ICRA’s on an as needed basis. 19. The typical information gathered, and assembled by the Defendant on employment candidates such as the Plaintiff includes a local criminal background check, national criminal database data, state and local criminal records, and residential/address history associated with social security number and date of birth, information relating to general character, ‘employment history, general reputation, personal characteristics, motor vehicle records, and mode of living. 20. A criminal record can be the most significant component of a background check and can often negatively impact a consumer’s application for employment or a consumer’s employment. As a result, the ICRAA contains specific provisions that impose duties of special care that both providers and users of such information must obey. Strict compliance is a requirement of the ICRAA as was intended in the drafting of the legislation and clearly governs the procedures that both ICRA’s and users of investigative consumer reports must take when reporting or using public records in connection with employment. 21. The ICRAA requires that, in connection with the reporting of a public record, unless the public records reported are completed and up to date, it must provide the consumer with a specific notification “at the time” it provides the record to an employer. This duty is in addition to the usual duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure “maximum possible accuracy’ standard. The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak 22. Around June 4, 2021 the Plaintiff applied for employment with the Defendant to COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6Noe Co md DA HW B® YD become a cleaner through their web portal located at https:/Avww.homeaglow.com 23. Around June 11, 2021 the Plaintiff successfully onboarded with the Defendant after Homeaglow received a background report procured from Choice Screening without first providing the Plaintiff a compliant consent disclosure pursuant to California Civil Code §1786.16 24. On June 16, 2021 the Plaintiff emailed the Defendant requesting for a copy of the background report procured by the Defendant. 25. Instead of complying with the ICRAA and sending a copy of the procured report to the Plaintiff within three business days of receipt as required by §1786.16 on June 17, 2021 at 9:14 am. the Plaintiff received a reply from the Defendant from email emma+cp484570@homeaglow.com responding to the Plaintiffs request for the background report stating “As for the results of the background check, I will be unable to send a copy to you as they are company propriety.” 26. On June 17, 2021 the Plaintiff alerted the Defendant of the two violations of §1786.16 attempting to establish dialogue to reach an early resolution to the violations. 27. — Since alerting the Defendant of the Two (2) ICRAA violations the Defendant has failed to respond by completely ignoring the Plaintiffs attempt resolve the continuing violations by the Defendant. . CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION TWO (2) VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION §1786.16 28. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations. 29. Homeaglow, Inc., is a user of investigative consumer reports and MUST comply with all provisions of the ICRAA to include section § 1786.16. 30. Atall times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is defined COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7Oo em NA HW BF WN RYN NY NY NY NN KN NY Be Be Be ewe ew we ew em eB SC WA A BR BN |= Soe ww NI DAH BF HW NH SK SC by section § 1786.2 of the California Civil Code. 31. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned background reports were a “consumer report” as that term is defined by section § 1786.2 of the California Civil Code. 32. Homeaglow, Inc’s., Two (2) violations of section § 1786.16 occurred because the Defendant failed to provide a consent disclosure to the Plaintiff containing the name, address and telephone number of the intended CRA and also a check box option allowing the Plaintiff to request a copy of the report if procured by the Defendant. 33. The second violation occurred because the Defendant failed to send a copy of the procured report to the Plaintiff within three business days of receipt of the report from Choice Screening. 34. As aresult of Defendant’s, violations of § 1786.16 of the California Civil Code, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in a statutory amount of $20,000. California Civil Code section §1786.50 address penalties for violations of sections §1786.10-1786.40 (ICRAA) as $10,000 or actual damages per violation or whichever is greater. The $10,000 per violation liability is supported by an opinion found in Poinsignon v. Imperva, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60161, 2018 WL 1709942 where a District Court in the Northern District of California correctly opined “ICRAA provides that a defendant is liable to a consumer for “[a]any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the [defendants] failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand ($10,000), whichever sum is greater.” Cal. Civ. Code $1786.50(a)(1). Plaintiff does not claim actual damages. An individual plaintiff who has not incurred any actual damages may still recover $10,000 in statutory damages.” 35. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $10,000 or actual damages per violation, statutory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from the Defendant, pursuant to § 1786.50. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiff's favor and damages against Defendant Homeaglow, Inc., for the following requested relief: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8. Actual damages; . Statutory damages of $20,000; Punitive damages; 9p Aw Pp . Costs and reasonable attorneys” fees pursuant to California Civil Code section §1786.50; and E. Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper. Date: August, 22, 2021 Nb , Kd 4 Nick Miletak — In Pro Se COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9