L.A. Coalition Sues Firm on Blacklisting of Renters

A San Fernando Valley firm was accused in a lawsuit Monday of illegally selling the names of tenants previously given eviction notices, enabling landlords to blackball prospective renters.

The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit, filed by a coalition of public-interest law firms and private attorneys, accuses Harvey Saltz, president of the U.D. Registry, of violating state and federal law and engaging in unfair business practices.

The 10-year-old Van Nuys firm collects and sells data on more than a million Southland tenants who have been served with unlawful detainers, the legal term for an eviction.

The suit’s main contention, disputed by Saltz, is that the registry must by law remove from its computers the names of tenants who have won eviction suits against landlords.

The suit also alleges that the registry fails to take reasonable precautions against errors and refuses to allow tenants or their attorneys to see unedited registry records.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unspecified general, special and punitive damages on behalf of nine plaintiffs, all tenants whom the suit alleges were unfairly blacklisted by the registry.

The suit also requests the court to enjoin the disputed practices.

Position Stated

“I don’t deny that some tenants are bad tenants, and I don’t object to a tenant credit-reporting agency. What I don’t like is when a good tenant is unfairly blackballed,” said attorney David S. Pallack of the San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services in Pacoima, one of the legal-service organizations bringing the lawsuit.

Other attorneys for the plaintiffs include the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and a private North Hollywood law firm, Brown and Whisman.

Saltz, a former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, said of the suit’s allegation: “All untrue. That’s not our practice, and they know it.”

The suit accuses Saltz and his registry of violating the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the state Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Statutes and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“This is the first case where tenants are suing the U.D. registry, and the outcome will affect tens of thousands of tenants in Los Angeles and perhaps throughout the state if we establish precedent,” Saltz said.

But he disputed Pallack’s interpretation of the laws.

“The Legal Aid people think, if the case is settled or dismissed, that that means the tenant prevailed” and the dispute cannot be reported, he said.

However, Saltz contended, the law does permit recording of such disputes. Even though a case is dismissed, a series of such cases may point to a potentially troublesome tenant, Saltz said.

The registry does not record tenants who prevailed, he said.

The suit contends that the registry has unfairly harmed tenants’ reputations and impaired their credit records. Some tenants, unable to obtain housing as a result of negative registry reports, have become homeless, the suit alleges.

Denied Tenancy

One plaintiff, Alice Arias, 43, of Los Angeles, a single mother of two, was denied tenancy in a federally subsidized housing complex as a result of the registry, the suit alleges. She and her children subsequently became homeless, losing all their furniture and belongings, the suit claims.

In another case, registry officials denied a request by plaintiff Louise Carter, 55, of Canoga Park, who is blind and confined to a wheelchair, to have an attorney examine the files kept on her, the lawsuit claims.

Investigative reports by the registry include information on a tenant’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics and occupation. The reports can also include so-called “life-style complaints” such as reports of loud stereos, barking dogs and structural damage.

The registry firm gathers its information from court eviction filings and written reports submitted by landlords who subscribe to the registry for an annual fee.