Green V. Onemain Financial Group, LLC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01639

Primary Source

Read the full complaint (PDF) — Green v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01639-JP, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is reproduced verbatim from the complaint. These are allegations, not proven facts. The defendant has not yet responded.

I. Parties

1. Plaintiff, Andrea Green, is an adult individual residing at 1352 N 76th St, Philadelphia, PA 19151. Plaintiff’s email address is dregreen627@gmail.com. Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this matter. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
2. Defendant, OneMain Financial Group, LLC (“OneMain”), is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 1500 Garrett Rd, Ste 100, Upper Darby, PA 19082-4519. Defendant is a “person” and a “furnisher” of information as defined by the FCRA. Upon information and belief, Defendant was previously subject to enforcement action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) in 2023 for violations of consumer protection laws.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and the Defendant resides and conducts business in this District.

III. Factual Allegations

6. On or about June 18, 2025, Plaintiff Andrea Green obtained a secured installment loan from Defendant OneMain Financial Group, LLC, identified as Account #11073208. The principal loan amount was $16,248.81.
7. The loan was secured by Plaintiff’s vehicle, a 2018 Toyota Camry (VIN:4T1B11HK3JU593067).
8. The terms of the loan included a 60-month repayment term, an Annual Percentage Rate (“APR”) of 25.67%, a monthly payment of $483.51, and total of payments amounting to $29,157.95.
9. Plaintiff made all scheduled monthly payments on time and in full from July 2025 through December 2025.
10. On or about January 2, 2026, Plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a collision, resulting in significant damage.
11. On or about January 13, 2026, Plaintiff’s insurer, State Farm Insurance, issued check #113898909J in the amount of $15,837.64. The check was made payable directly to “OneMain Financial” as the lienholder.
12. Defendant OneMain Financial received the insurance check on or about January 13, 2026.
13. Despite receiving the check, Defendant NEVER cashed, deposited, or applied the $15,837.64 insurance payment to Plaintiff’s loan account.
14. The $15,837.64 insurance payment was sufficient to reduce the loan balance to approximately $0.00, which would have made the account substantially current and satisfied the vast majority of the outstanding debt. Instead, by refusing to apply the insurance proceeds, Defendant has allowed the account balance to increase to $16,858 as of February 28, 2026, and the past due amount to balloon to $1,226.01 as of March 2026.
15. Despite holding the uncashed insurance payment in its possession, Defendant reported Plaintiff’s account with multiple “30 days past due” with a past due amount of $243 to all three major credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion) in January 2026, with a date of first delinquency reported as January 31, 2026.
16. While holding the uncashed check, Defendant sent harassing text messages to Plaintiff demanding payment of $738.14.
17. These text messages were sent by a branch manager identified as “Beatriz,” who pressured Plaintiff for payment despite Defendant’s possession of the insurance proceeds.
18. Defendant continued its false reporting in February 2026, escalating the delinquency status to “30-59 Days Past Due” with an increased past due amount of $246 and a balance of $16,858, as reported to Equifax on February 28, 2026.
19. As of March 2026, while still holding the uncashed $15,837.64 insurance check, Defendant’s online portal shows the account as having a “Past Due Payment” of $1,226.01 marked “Due Now,” demonstrating the continued deterioration of the account solely due to Defendant’s refusal to apply the insurance proceeds.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has stated that it refuses to cash or apply the insurance check because “the title was not satisfied,” despite being the lienholder with a legal right and duty to accept and apply insurance proceeds for a damaged vehicle securing its loan.
21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false credit reporting, Plaintiff’s credit score dropped significantly to a Vantage Score of 532.
22. Plaintiff has suffered severe and documented emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff’s son, Khalee Hassian King Jr., has provided a sworn affidavit attesting to witnessing Plaintiff’s emotional decline, including depression, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, withdrawal, feeling overwhelmed, and constant worry about her financial situation and ability to obtain necessary transportation.
23. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including damage to her creditworthiness, inability to obtain credit on favorable terms, inability to secure transportation, severe emotional distress, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and humiliation.
24. Defendant’s conduct was willful, intentional, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under federal and state law.
25. Defendant violated its duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure the accuracy of information it furnishes to credit reporting agencies and to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputes.
26. Upon information and belief, Defendant has a history of consumer protection violations. In 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit against OneMain Financial alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act and other federal consumer protection laws, demonstrating a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct toward consumers.

IV. Exhibits

Plaintiff attaches the following exhibits in support of this Complaint:

A. Exhibit A: Loan Agreement and Disclosure Statement (Account #11073208), dated June 18, 2025

B. Exhibit B: State Farm Insurance Payment Notice showing Check #113898909J for $15,837.64 issued January 13, 2026, payable to OneMain Financial.

C. Exhibit C: Bank records and/or documentation showing Check #113898909J was NOT CASHED or DEPOSITED by OneMain Financial

D. Exhibit D: Text messages from OneMain Financial branch manager “Beatriz” demanding payment while holding uncashed insurance check.

E. Exhibit E: Equifax Credit Report dated March 5, 2026 (Confirmation #6064601029), showing OneMain account reported as “30-59 Days Past Due” with balance of $16,858 and past due amount of $246.

F. Exhibit F: Experian Credit Report dated March 5, 2026

G. Exhibit G: TransUnion Credit Report dated March 6, 2026

H. Exhibit H: Screenshot of OneMain Financial online account portal dated March 2026, showing “Past Due Payment” of $1,226.01 marked “Due Now.”

I. Exhibit I: Affidavit of Khalee Hassian King Jr. (Plaintiff’s son) attesting to Plaintiff’s emotional distress, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances caused by Defendant’s conduct.

Claims for Relief

Count I — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (Failure to Investigate Dispute and Correct Inaccurate Information)

27. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
28. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), upon receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency, a furnisher of information must investigate with respect to the disputed information, review all relevant information provided, and report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009); Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010).
29. If the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, the furnisher must report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D). See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002).
30. Defendant reported false and inaccurate information (specifically, that the account was “30 days past due”) while holding an uncashed $15,837.64 insurance payment that would have satisfied the alleged delinquency.
31. Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after being notified of the dispute and failed to correct inaccurate information.
32. Defendant’s violation of the FCRA was willful, rendering it liable for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. A violation is willful when a defendant knowingly or recklessly violates the FCRA or acts with reckless disregard of its requirements. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57 (2007); Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426, 431 (4th Cir. 2004).
33. Alternatively, Defendant’s violation was negligent, rendering it liable for actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. See Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Trans Union, LLC, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
34. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o. See Cousin v. Trans Union Corp., 246 F.3d 359, 372 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Under the FCRA, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.”); Littles v. Lawyers’ Title Ins. Corp., 679 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1019 (E.D. Mo. 2010).

Count II — Violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1 et seq.)

35. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
36. Defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, including but not limited to:
    • a. Accepting a secured loan payment via insurance check and refusing to apply it to the consumer’s account.
    • b. Reporting false delinquency information to credit bureaus while holding sufficient payment to cure the delinquency.
    • c. Engaging in collection activity and demanding payment while holding sufficient payment to cure the account.
    • d. Conduct likely to mislead consumers regarding their rights and obligations.
37. These acts constitute violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-2(4)(xxi), which prohibits engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. See Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 817 (Pa. 1974). Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145, 149 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).
38. Defendant’s conduct was knowing and intentional.
39. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the use or employment by Defendant of these prohibited methods, acts, or practices.
40. Pursuant to 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-9.2, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages, treble damages (up to three times the actual damages sustained), and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See Hunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 2008); Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 863 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004); Weinberg v. Sun Co., 777 A.2d 442, 446 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).

Count III — Negligence (Pennsylvania Common Law)

41. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
42. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to:
    • a. Properly process, cash, and apply insurance proceeds received in its capacity as lienholder;
    • b. Accurately report credit information regarding Plaintiff’s account; and
    • c. Refrain from false or misleading collection activity. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Starlight Ballroom Dance Club, Inc., 769 A.2d 696, 700 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (establishing duty of care in financial relationships).
43. Defendant breached these duties by receiving and refusing to deposit or apply the $15,837.64 insurance payment while simultaneously reporting a false delinquency and demanding additional payments.
44. Defendant’s breach was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damage, including damage to her credit score, financial harm, and emotional distress.
45. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, costs, and interest. See Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000). Bugosh v. I.U. North Am., Inc., 971 A.2d 1228, 1232 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).

Count IV — Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Pennsylvania Common Law)

46. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
47. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care arising from their lender-borrower relationship and Defendant’s position as a furnisher of credit information.
48. Defendant breached that duty through its negligent handling of the insurance proceeds (failing to cash a substantial check) and its subsequent false credit reporting and collection harassment.
49. Defendant’s breach caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, and mental anguish.
50. Plaintiff’s emotional distress was a foreseeable result of Defendant’s conduct, as financial instability and credit damage are known to cause significant stress and anxiety.
51. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for her emotional distress, along with costs and interest. See Toney v. Chester Cty. Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 197 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008); Kazatsky v. King David Mem’l Park, Inc., 515 A.2d 1217, 1223 (Pa. 1986) (recognizing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims under Pennsylvania law).

Count V — Breach of Secured Party Duties Under UCC Article 9 (13 Pa.C.S. § 9207)

52. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
53. As the secured party and lienholder on Plaintiff’s 2018 Toyota Camry, Defendant had a security interest in the vehicle pursuant to the loan agreement dated June 18, 2025.
54. Under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically 13 Pa.C.S. §9207, a secured party must use reasonable care in custody and preservation of collateral in the secured party’s possession. See In re Excello Press, Inc., 890 F.2d 896, 905 (7th Cir. 1989); Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S. 16, 20 (1995) (discussing secured party’s duties under UCC Article 9).
55. When Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged in a collision on January 2, 2026, the insurance proceeds in the amount of $15,837.64 constituted “proceeds” of the collateral as defined under 13 Pa.C.S. § 9102. See In re Delbridge, 61 B.R. 484, 490 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986); 13 Pa.C.S. § 9102(a)(64) (defining “proceeds” to include “insurance payable by reason of the loss or nonconformity of, defect or infringement of rights in, or damage to, the collateral”).
56. Defendant, as the secured party and named payment on the insurance check, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and commercial reasonableness in handling insurance proceeds. 13 Pa.C.S. § 9207(a); see Flagship Nat’l Bank v. Gray Distribution Sys., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 158, 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997); In re C.W. Mining Co., 477 B.R. 176, 189 (Bankr. D. Utah 2012).
57. Defendant breached its duties as a secured party by:
    • a. Failing to cash or deposit the insurance check #113898909J for $15,837.64.
    • b. Failing to apply the insurance proceeds to the secured debt as commercially reasonable;
    • c. Allowing the insurance check to remain uncashed while reporting the account as delinquent.
    • d. Demanding additional payments from Plaintiff while holding sufficient proceeds to satisfy the debt.
58. Defendant’s conduct was not commercially reasonable and violated its statutory duties under UCC Article 9. See Citicorp Acceptance Co. v. Robison, 782 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1182 (D. Haw. 2011); 13 Pa.C.S. § 9610 (requiring secured parties to act in a commercially reasonable manner).
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its secured party duties, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including credit damage, emotional distress, and financial harm.
60. Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages, costs, and interest.

Count VI — Conversion (Pennsylvania Common Law)

61. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
62. The insurance proceeds in the amount of $15,837.64, represented by check #113898909J, were property in which Plaintiff had a legal interest and right. See Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 197 A.2d 721, 726 (Pa. 1964) (establishing elements of conversion under Pennsylvania law).
63. The insurance proceeds were intended to satisfy Plaintiff’s secured debt with Defendant and were made payable to Defendant as lienholder for the express purpose of being applied to Plaintiff’s loan account.
64. Defendant received possession of the check on or about January 13, 2026, with the obligation to apply it to Plaintiff’s debt.
65. Defendant intentionally exercised unauthorized control over the insurance proceeds by:
    • a. Refusing to cash or deposit the check;
    • b. Refusing to apply the proceeds to Plaintiff’s account;
    • c. Retaining possession of the check without authorization;
    • d. Depriving Plaintiff of the benefit and use of those funds to satisfy her debt.
66. Defendant’s unauthorized exercise of control over the insurance proceeds was intentional and without Plaintiff’s consent. See Reisman v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, 965 F. Supp. 165, 172 (E.D. Pa. 1997); Liss v. Studeny, 908 A.2d 1296, 1301 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).
67. Defendant’s conduct was done with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of her property rights in the insurance proceeds.
68. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conversion, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including credit damage, inability to satisfy her debt, continued accrual of interest and charges, emotional distress, and financial harm.
69. Defendant’s conversion was willful and malicious, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages. Pennsylvania law permits punitive damages where a defendant’s conduct is “outrageous, due to defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.” Feld v. Merriam, 506 A.2d 330, 334 (Pa. 1986); see also SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 587 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa. 1991).
70. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of the converted property ($15,837.64), consequential damages, punitive damages, costs, and interest.

Remedies Sought

In the Prayer for Relief, the plaintiff requests:

• Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial
• Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n of up to $1,000 per willful violation
• Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n for willful violations of the FCRA
• Treble damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania UTPCPL, 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-9.2
• Compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish
• Damages for conversion in the amount of $15,837.64 plus consequential damages
• Punitive damages for willful and malicious conversion
• Damages for breach of secured party duties under 13 Pa.C.S. § 9207
• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law
• Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o and 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-9.2
• Injunctive relief requiring Defendant to immediately cash and apply the $15,837.64 insurance payment, correct all false credit reporting, and cease all collection activity against Plaintiff
• Trial by jury on all issues so triable
• Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

Frequently Asked Questions

What does FCRA Section 1681s-2(b) require of furnishers?

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), when a furnisher of information (such as a lender) receives notice from a credit reporting agency that a consumer has disputed reported information, the furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation, review all relevant information provided, and report the results back to the credit reporting agency. If the investigation reveals the information is inaccurate or incomplete, the furnisher must correct or delete it and notify all other credit bureaus to which it reported. This provision creates a private right of action for consumers, meaning individuals can sue furnishers directly for failing to meet these obligations.

What is the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)?

The UTPCPL, codified at 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1 et seq., is Pennsylvania’s primary consumer protection statute. It prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce. Section 201-2(4)(xxi) serves as a catch-all provision covering any fraudulent or deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. Consumers who prove a violation can recover actual damages, and the court may award treble damages (up to three times actual damages) plus reasonable attorney’s fees under § 201-9.2.

What duties does UCC Article 9 impose on secured parties regarding collateral proceeds?

Under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Commercial Code, specifically 13 Pa.C.S. § 9207, a secured party in possession of collateral must use reasonable care in its custody and preservation. Insurance proceeds from damaged collateral are defined as “proceeds” under § 9102(a)(64). When a lienholder receives insurance proceeds for damaged collateral securing a loan, it has a duty to exercise commercially reasonable care in handling those funds — which generally means applying them to the secured debt or otherwise acting in the debtor’s interest. Failure to do so may constitute a breach of the secured party’s statutory duties.

What is conversion under Pennsylvania law?

Conversion is the deprivation of another’s right of property in, or use or possession of, a chattel without the owner’s consent and without lawful justification. Under Pennsylvania law, conversion can apply to money or negotiable instruments when they are specifically identifiable — such as a specific insurance check. A plaintiff must show that the defendant exercised unauthorized dominion or control over the property in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff’s rights. Where conversion is willful and malicious, Pennsylvania courts may award punitive damages in addition to the value of the converted property.

What is negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania recognizes negligent infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action where a defendant’s negligent conduct causes the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the emotional distress was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence and that the distress was severe. In the context of financial relationships, courts have recognized that negligent handling of a consumer’s account — particularly when it results in credit damage and collection harassment — can foreseeably cause significant emotional harm including anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.

Source: CourtListener Docket 72495138 — Green v. OneMain Financial Group, LLC