HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-0467
O~ -~t.7 Qo'r.L/62."
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph Thorn
Magaro Road
Enola, P A 17025
Collectcorp
455 North 3rd Street
Suite 260
Phoenix, AZ 85004-3924
Nicholas Wilson, an individual, and CEO
of Collect corp, and Karyn Ware, an :
individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp, and Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President of Collectcorp,
455 North 3rd Street, Suite 260
Phoenix, ZA 85004-3924
Plaintiff( s) & Addresses
Defendant( s) & Addresses
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please issue writ of summons ill the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued
and forwarded to (X ) Attorney () Sheriff.
Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Phone 717-732-3750
SaraccoLaw@aol.com
~
,d, " Signature of Attorney
Dated: 1/19/07
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLA
COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOu.
AVE
Pro
Dated: J~~ ~~ ;),,007
I
By:
Deputy
~ t:;) iQ.
i ~
~
.......... ~ = 0
~ =
~ --' 11
C- --f '@
;,...,.. :r:-
~ r z rn..!J
~ N r-
-ofT1
N i:~:} (:7
::~~..:.)
v ;J= =-r i
~ 3: .:.) ..J
.-.-:;.,C)
..:'~- X- Om
--, :-1
a_..... 0 {;
-. ...L
0 -<
O/2~
Joseph Thorn,
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No: 07-~ If(,7
v,
COLLECTCORP Corporation, and
Nicholas Wilson, Karyn Ware, an
Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President of Collectcorp,
Civil Term
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to
the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so, the case may proceed without further notice for
any money claimed in the Complaint, or for any other claim or
relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or
property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE
YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 S. Bedford Street, Carlisle, P A
1-800-990-9108, 717-249-3166
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas
demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin
previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cua1quier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en 1a
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros
derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO 1MMED1ATAMENTE. 51 NO T1ENE ABOGADOO S1
NO T1ENE EL D1NERO SUF1C1ENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1C10N, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OF1C1NA CUYA D1RECC10N SE PUEDECONSEGU1R AS1STENC1A LEGAL.
"
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph Thorn,
Plaintiff,
No: 07-~ 1(,7
v.
COLLECTCORP Corporation, and
Nicholas Wilson, an individual, and CEO
of Collect corp, and Karyn Ware, an
individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp, and Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President of Collectcorp,
Defendants.
Civil Term
Jury Trial Demanded
COMPLAINT
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. ~2270 et seq.
2. Defendants, Collectcorp, is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address 455 North Third Street,
Suite 260, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
3. Defendants Nicholas Wilson, CEO, directs and controls the collection activity and is
therefore, a debt collector engaged in the business of collecting debts within this
Commonwealth, with a mailing address in the United States of 455 N. 3rd Street, Phoenix,
AZ, 85004, and/or 400 E. VanBuren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
4. Defendants Karyn Ware, VP, directs and controls the collection activity and is therefore,
a debt collector engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth,
with a mailing address in the United States of 455 N. 3rd Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004,
and/or 400 E. VanBuren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
"
"
5. Defendants Jim Smith, VP, directs and controls the collection activity and is therefore, a
debt collector engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth,
with a mailing address in the United States of 455 N, 3rd Street, Phoenix, AZ, 85004,
and/or 400 E. VanBuren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
6, Collectcorp also has offices in Canada, with a mailing address of 415 Younge Street,
Suite 700, Toronto, Canada, M5B 2E7.
7. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants hides behind its parent company
in Canada, repeatedly violating United States laws and then avoiding suit.
8. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, Wilson, Ware and Smith directed and
controlled the collection activities of Collectcorp.
9, At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, Wilson, Ware and Smith, knowingly,
willingly and/or intentionally, acted alone and in concert to deceive, mislead, confuse
and/or otherwise threaten the Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt.
10. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, Wilson, Ware and Smith, are liable under
respondent superior.
11. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants were negligent in their performance to direct
and control collection activity.
12. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully acted,
alone and in concert, by failing to adequately train collection personnel.
13. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the
Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a).
14. On or about January 2007, agents of the Defendants contacted Plaintiff and his partner,
Ms. Rona Magaro, regarding the alleged debt.
15, Defendants advised Plaintiff that he could talk to anyone he wanted to talk to regarding
his debt.
16. Defendants further advised Plaintiff that he did not need permission to discuss the alleged
debt with Ms. Magaro, because she was his "common law spouse" and that any debts that
Plaintiff had, she also had.
17. Defendants further advised Plaintiff that he could sell the house even though Plaintiff did
not own the house, because Ms. Magaro was responsible for the alleged debt,
.-
\
Defendants further stated that they were charging interest and that every month, the
amount of the alleged debt would substantially increase.
Plaintiff has no contract or other written agreement to pay interest to any of the named
Defendants.
20. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants does not have a valid assignment
and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect the alleged debt.
21. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants added interest to the alleged debt, in
violation of Pennsylvania law.
22, Defendants offered Plaintiff a settlement offer to avoid losing Ms. Magaro's home.
23. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that making a settlement offer is a prelude to
litigation and as such, Plaintiff believed that litigation was imminent.
24. Defendants rarely, if ever, files suit against consumer debtors as such, any inference of
litigation is a violation of the FDCP A.
19.
18.
COUNT I - PENNSYL VANIA FAIR CREDIT
EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. ~2270 et seq.
Against all Defendants
25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein,
26, The FDCP A states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCP A. 15 U.S.C.
~ 1692n. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. ~7311:
"Unlawful collection agency practices.
(a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful for a collection agency, for the purpose of
collecting or enforcing the payment thereof, to take an assignment of any such
claim from a creditor, if all of the following apply:
1. The assignment between the creditors and collection agency is in writing;
2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit
assignments.
3. The collection agency complies with the act of December 17, 1968...
(b. 1 )Unfair or deceptive methods. It is unlawful for a collector to collect any
amount, including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal
obligation, unless such amount is expressly provided in the agreement creating the
debt or is permitted by law."
27. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated this provision of
Pennsylvania law,
28. Plaintiff further believes that Defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, as alleged in the General Allegations and Count II, as such, said violated
also violate the Pennsylvania FCEV, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a),
29. That Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, as defined by FCEV and the regulations, including but not limited to, violations
of37 Pa.Code ~~303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. ~201-2(4).
30. Defendants' acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful,
reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff s rights with the purpose of
coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt.
31. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in an amount of not less that $30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf
and against Defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. ~2270.5.
COUNT 11- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT
15 D.S.C. ~1692 ET SEQ.
Against all Defendants
32. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 V.S.C. ~1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 V.S.C. ~1692k(d) and 28 V.S.c.
~1337.
33. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 V.S,C. 1391 (b).
34. Plaintiff is an individual and conswner pursuant to 15 V,S.C, ~1692a(6).
35. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 V.S.C. 11692a(3),
36. Agents of the Defendants made telephone calls to Plaintiff and Ms. Magaro threatening to
I
sell Ms. Magaro' s house to satisfy the alleged debt.
37. Defendants contacted Plaintiff and Ms. Magaro during January 2007, which are
"communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5),
38. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a
consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
39. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this
action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other
documents, with regard to plaintiff s alleged debt.
40. FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C.
g1692n. Defendants violated Pennsylvania law states, I 8 Pa.C.S, ~7311, as stated herein.
41. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. IS V.S.C. ~ I 692f. Defendants violated this section
of the FDCP A.
42. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U,S.C. ~1692e.
Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A.
43. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt. IS U.S.C. g1692d. Defendants violated this section ofthe FDCP A.
44. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the
collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, 15 V.S.C. 91692c(b).
Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A.
45. The Defendants violated 15 V.S.C. ~ 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the
Plaintiffs prior consent.
46. The Defendants violated IS U.S.C. ~ 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the
imminence of legal action by Defendants.
47. The Defendants violated 15 V.S.C. 9 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff
had requested the Defendants cease communication with the Plaintiff.
48. The FDCP A states, it is unlawful to design, compile and furnish any form knowing that
such form would be used to create the false believe in a consumer that a person other than
,
the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collection of or in an attempt to
collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is
not so participating, 15 D.S.C. 91692j. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
49. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding his/her right to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 D.S,C. 91692g. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
50. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the
consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that
the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications.
15 D.S.C. 91692c(a)(3). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
51. The FDCP A states, it is unlawful to add interest, charges, fees or other costs unless
authorized by law or contract; Plaintiff does not have a contract with Defendants.
15 D.S.C. 91692fand 91692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendants violated this section of the
FDCP A.
52, Defendants's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and
otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 US.C. 91692e(5) and (10),
91692f(8) and 91692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 RR. 658 (B.D. Pa 1977).
53. Defendants's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in
violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. 111.1993); Sluys
v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F, Supp 1 (D.
Conn. 1989).
54. Any threat of litigation is false if the Defendants rarely, sues consumer debtors or if the
Defendants did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bently v, Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6
F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 D.S.C, 91692e(5), 15 D.S.C. 91692e(10).
55. At all time pertinent hereto, the Defendants was acting by and through its agents, servants
andlor employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and
under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein.
56. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants as well as their agents, servants,
andlor employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.
57. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants's agents made false threats of
,
litigation.
58. Defendants's threat oflitigation was false because Defendants does not routinely file suit
against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 D.S.C. ~1692e(5) and (10).
59. Defendants's letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 D.S.C.
~1692e(5) and (10), ~1692f(8) and ~1692j.
60. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement
was not made.
61. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
Defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
62. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c,
d, e, f, g, h, and/or n.
63. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
64. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of Defendants as aforementioned, plaintiff has
been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
compensation is sought.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
on Plaintiff s behalf and against Defendants and issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete
incident in which Defendants have violated the FDCP A.
(B) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages for anxiety, harassment,
and intimidation directed at him in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of Defendants form letters.
@) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of$350.00 per hour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiffs attorney in
vindicating Plaintiffs rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 D.S.C.
S 1692k(a)(3),
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
. .
.
COUNT IV - FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
65, Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
66. The Fair Credit Reporting at, 15 D,S.C. ~1681b prohibits the improper use ofa
consumer's credit information.
67. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant reported false, misleading and/or
inaccurate information on Plaintiff s credit report, without first validating the alleged
debt.
68. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant reviewed Plaintiff's credit report
without proper authority or assignment of the alleged debt.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment
for Plaintiff and against defendant sand issue an Order:
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) for each violation of the FCRA or each separate and discrete incident
in which Defendant have violated the FCRA. 15 D.S.C. 91681n(a)(l)(A),
(B) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages for anxiety, harassment,
and intimidation directed at Plaintiff in an amount not less than Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of Defendant form letters.
C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of$350.00/hour for hours reasonably expended Plaintiffs attorney in
vindicating his rights under the FDCP A, pe
Dated: 2/1 107 By: Is/D
Deanna L Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, P A 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com
Q /'-) 0
C.~~
, <:;:;:> -n
<' __...I
...." .~
rr1 .....-n
c:o f11p
N -nrT1
~G?
0:> C-2C.l
-0 ;sf~
::;::
N
.. J->
0"1 :n
f-v -<
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph Thorn, No: 07-467
Plaintiff,
v,
COLLECTCORP Corporation, and
Nicholas Wilson, an individual, and CEO
of Collect corp, and Karyn Ware, an
individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp, and Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President of Collectcorp,
Defendants,
Civil Term
Jury Trial Demanded
IMPORT ANT NOTICE
TO: Karyn Ware and Jim Smith, Vice Presidents
Collectcorp
455 N. 3rd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
DATE OF NOTICE: MARCH 7. 2007
YOU ARE IN DEF AUL T BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN
APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE
COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST
YOu. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE,
A JUDGEMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU
MA Y LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE
THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR
CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND
OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, P A
717-249-3166
800-990-9108
1flfJJ-
Deanna Lynn Saracco
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, P A 17025
(717) 732-3750
Attorney for Plaintiff
~ Q,
"8
"....-;,.,,~
-S:;,~-.
:;.::J
.-
~
~j
";r:
(
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
Joseph Thorn, No: 07-467
Plaintiff,
v.
COLLECTCORP Corporation, and
Nicholas Wilson, an individual, and CEO
of Collect corp, and Karyn Ware, an
individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp, and Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President of Collectcorp,
Defendants.
Civil Term
Jury Trial Demanded
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Writ of Summons and the Complaint in
the above captioned matter was served on both Karyn Ware and Jim Smith, vice presidents of the
defendant corporation, Collectcorp, via certified mail, return receipt, on February 12,2007, see
attached, and the Ten Day Notice was sent, via U. S. Mail, on March 7, 2007, per the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for service of an out of state defendant. Defendants,
individual and corporate, had ample time to respond to the Complaint.
Dated: March 7, 2007
By:
-J11A-
eanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, P A 17025
(717) 732-3750
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Certificate of Service
along with the Ten Day Notice was sent, via U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid, as follows:
Ms. Karyn Ware, Vice President and
Mr. Jim Smith. Vice Presidents
Collectcorp
455 N, yd Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Dated: 3/7/07
By: /SIDe& Saracco
,
. Complete items 1. 2. and 3. PJstJ complete
Item 4lf Restricted DelIve1y Is desired.
. PrInt your name and address on the rwerse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the maJIpIece,
or on the front If apace permits.
1. ArtIcle Addnlssed to:
--_._--~-~---------------~------
Karyn Ware, VP
CollectCOrp
455 N. 3rd Street
Phoenix, AZ, 85004
2. Artk:le Nw'\'Iber
(1hInsferfromseMc 7002 0510 0000 1489 2010
PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestlc FIetum Receipt
3. ServIce 1')'pe
o CertIfIed Mall [J Express Mall
I C - C --..-
o Insured Mall C C.O.D.
4. Restricted DelIvery? (EmI Fee) 0 Yes
1Q2595.02-M-tS40 ;
I
,
"..
. Complete itemS 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 If RestrICted [)eIIvery Is deslAlcl.
. PrInt your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mallp1ece,
or on the front If space pennlts.
1. Article AddreSSed to:
--~-_.._-~----------
Jim Smith, VP
Collectcorp
455 N. 3rd Street
Phoenix, AZ, 85004
3. SeMceType
Cl CertIfied Mall 0 Express Mall
Cl RegIstered 0 Return,ReceIpt for Merchandise
o InsUred Mall 0 C.O.D.
4. RestrIcted DelIvery? (EXtra Fee) 0 Yes
2. ArtIcle NlJ1Iber
(Tnrnsfer fi'om setYIce .18beJ)
PS Form 3811 , FebruarY 2004
7002 0510 0000 1489 2003
DomestIc Return ReceIpt
102695-02-M-1640
(")
~.
4"\ ~;~
~,~"
r--:>
c::>
;;:;:;:..
-.}
-
j(~ c.'
-"'..~
_.._;'-"
~-,-)'Io
-;\)
o
-y)
N
.-or.)
c..)
~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH THORN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLLECTCORP, NICHOLAS
WILSON, an Individual and CEO of
Collectcorp, KARYN WARE, an
individuals and Vice President of
Collectcorp, and JIM SMITH, an
individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp,
Defendants.
No.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYL VANIA
JOSEPH THORN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLLECTCORP, NICHOLAS
WILSON, an Individual and CEO of
Collectcorp, KARYN WARE, an
individuals and Vice President of
) CIVIL DIVISION
)
) No: 07-467
)
)
)
)
)
)
Collectcorp, and JIM SMITH, an )
individual and Vice President of )
Collectcorp, )
Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Defendants,
Collectcorp, Nicholas Wilson, Karyn Ware and Jim Smith (Defendants).
Defendants hereby remove from the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, the following described and captioned lawsuit, and respectfully
show:
1. Defendants are named in the civil action filed by Plaintiff, Rona
Magaro, on January 22, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, captioned as Joseph Thorn v, Collectcorp, Nicholas Wilson, an
individual and CEO of Collectcorp, and Karyn Ware, an individual and Vice
President of Collectcorp, and Jim Smith, and individual and Vice President of
Collectcorp, Case No. 07-467.
2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 99 1441 and 1446, Defendants remove
Plaintiff s state court action to this Court, which is the judicial district in which the
lawsuit is pending.
3. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. 92270 et seq. (Count 1), the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. 9201-1 et seq. (Count 1), the Fair
2
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCP A), 15 D.S.C. ~ 1692, et seq. (Count 2), and
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 V.S.C. ~ 1681, et seq. (Count 4 sic).
4. Removal of Plaintiffs state court action is proper under 28 D.S.C. ~
1441. If the action had originally been brought in this Court, the Court would have
had original jurisdiction over Counts 2 and 4 (sic) per 28 D.S.C. ~ 1331,15 D.S.C.
~ 1692 and 15 D.S.C. ~1681, and supplemental jurisdiction over Count 1 per 28
D.S.C. 9 1367.
5. Original jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction exists
because plaintiff asserts claims under the FDCP A and FCRA.
6. Pursuant to 28 D.S.C. ~ 1446(b), Defendants have timely filed this
Notice of Removal. Plaintiffs complaint, filed on January 22, 2007, was served
on Defendants on February 13, 2007. This Notice of Removal is filed within 30
days of receipt of the complaint by Defendants and is, therefore, timely filed under
28 D.S.C. 9 1446(b).
7. Pursuant to 28 D.S.C. 9 1446(a), Defendants attach to this Notice of
Removal, and incorporates by reference, a copy of Plaintiff s complaint.
WHEREFORE, based upon this Court's federal question and supplemental
jurisdiction, Defendants respectfully request that this case proceed in this Court, as
an action properly removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
3
DATE: March 16, 2007
Respectfully Submitted,
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY: sf Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire
Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire
I.D. No. 92463
4200 Crums Mill Road
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3517
pmmorcom@mdwcg.com
Attorneys for the Defendants
4
(:>.1 -""7 ~'v,tT~
IN THE COURT OF OOMM.ONPLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAMA
(") ~
(~ c::>
:tV -.;J
""tli'7:i t..
11'1 ri' 1:P
O~mrt(s)&.AddTe.~~S :2. ::r.' %
-;:..... N
:~~~~;. N
~..;.e~.;
1';("; '"1:l
;;f.'c' 3:
;;""'{'~ .r:-
~ ~ ~
.... Q "<
Plea$eissue writ of summons in theabove-captioned aeUon. Writ Q{SunttnQI1S shall be issued
and forwarded to (X ) Attorney () Sheriff:
Joseph Thorn
Magaro Road
Ellola. PA 17025
PIM'tftf~).~ &~~a
Collectcorp
455 North :Jtd ~et
Suite zOO
Phoenix, AZ 85004..3924
Nidtolas Wilson, an individual, ~d CEO
of Co.flevtcotp,8l'1d Karyn Ware, an :
individual and Vice Presid~nt of
Col1ectcorp, and Jim Smith. an individuQl
and Vice President of CoUectoorp,
4SS North:.;rJ Street, Suite 260
PhQeIllX, ZA 85Q04.3924'
o
41
.....
::J:'T\
mr:w
'":t'IJJ
;~<9
:~~<:",.i
,:J- "I~;;
lR;..E~Il,J FQll WRIT 1)1' S~()N8
TO TIlE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire
76 Greenm(mt Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania l7025
Phone 717~732-375Q
SaraccoLaW@aol.com
Jf)Jk IJ ~<CA
~jgllature of Attorney
Dated: 1119.197
WRJT OF S.UMMONS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
Dared:,- J'ilo :2,~';JJX>7
TRUE COpy FROM p~OORO
~T"'~~W'Il;rmc~ \ ~~I"':-:' ';~f3setmr'"
~~~:€~
By:_
Deputy
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
You have beeh sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the fOllowing pages, you must take action
within twenty C20} days after this Complaint is served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attor~ey and
filing in w:d.bng wit.h the court your defenses cr o:bjection5 to
the claims set forth again5~ yo~. Yo~ are warned that if you
fail to do so, the C8se may pr.oceed without further notice for
any ffi3ney claimed in the Complaint, or for any other claim or
relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or
property or othe~ r,gh~~ important to you.
1'00 SHOw:.o !fAKE TB%e PAPER ro YOUR LAWYBR AT ONCB. :IF
YOU DO NO~ RAW A LAWYER Oil CANNO!l' AFFORD ONE I GO TO OR
TELBPHONi TBB OFFICE SJ:~ FOR'l'll :BELOW TO FIND OUT WHBJU:
YOU CAN GET LEGA:L HELP.
Cum berland COUDty Bar Assoeiatloll
32 S. Bedfok'd Street, Carlisle, P A
1~80()'990.9108, 117-249-3166
NOJl~:rA
L@ h~n demandado a uated en la cort8. Si usted quir~ def~nd~~se d~
estas d~~~d~~ expu~~~~ en laB pa9ina~ siquientes, usteu tiene viente ;20}
dias d~ pla~o al par~ir de Is fecha de la Q~crita 0 en pe~80na 0 ~or abo93cto y
arc~iv~~ en la corte en forma excrlta SU3 defensas 0 SUo objection~s a l~s'
de~~nd@, la ~orte tomaIa medidas y puede entraL u~a orden contr6 u~~~d sin
previo aviso 0 notifioaciQn y por oualquiar quej~ 0 alivio que es ped~do ~n l~
peticion de demanda. Vsted p~ede percter dinero 0 sus propisdadp'9 Q otros
derechos lsr,portdntes p~;r:i;1 \,1~ ttl!d.
.L.Le\'E ESTA lJl:!;MAHDA A UN ~UGAI)o Il'lMEDIA'I'AMENTE. SINO TIEN~ ABOGA!1CO SJ
NO TIEN~ E~ DINeRO SU~ICJE~TE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, V~Yh EN ~~RSO~A Q LLAME
PO~ ~EL~~UNO A ~~ O~IcrN~ ~U~~ DIR~CC~ON SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTE~CIA L~~L.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON :PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTYt PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph 1l1om,
Plaintiff;.
No: 07-467
~.
COLLECTCORP Corporation, and
Nicholas WillSon, an individual, and CEO
of CoIlectcorp, and KAryn Ware. aD.
individual and Vice President of
ColIectcorp, and Jim Smith, an individual
and Vice President ofCol1ectcQrp,
Defendants.
Civil Term
Jury Trial Demanded
COMPI.A lNT
GEN'ERAL ALL:tGATI0NS
1. Jurisdiction for this Action IS a.sserted.und~r the Pennsylvania Fair Credit ExLtmsion
U~ormiIY Act, 73 ?S. ~2270 et seq.
2. Defendants, Collectcorp, is a busines3 entity engaged in tbe business of collecting
consumer debts in this Conunon~alth With a maiJing address 455 North Third Street.
Suire 260, Phoen!x, AZ 85004.
3. Defmdants Nicholas Wilson, CEO, directs and contrQls the'colh:~ion activity \too is
therefore, n debt collector engaged in the business of collecting debts within tbl3
Commonwealth. with a mailing address in the Uni1ed Statc~ of 455 N, J~ Streli}t, Phoooix,
AZ. 85004, and/or 400 E, ViiDiBuren Street, Phoenix~ AZ 85004.
4. Dl':fendants Karyn Ware.. VP, directs and controls the. collection acuvRyand is ttrer.efore.
a debt ooUector eng~ged in the business of collecting debtli within this Commonwealth,
with a mailing addrcss in the United States of 455 N. 3rd S~el, Phoenix, AZ. 85004,
and/or 400 E. VanBuren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
5. Defendants Jim Smith., VP, directs and controls the collection activity and i8 ~fure, a
debt coll~tor engnged in the business of collecting debb WW:till ihi:o; Commonwealth,
. . . . . .
with a mailing addl:ess in 1he United States of 455 N. 31'd Stree; Phoenix. AZ, 85004}
and/or 400 E. VanBuren Slreet, Phoenix. At. 85004.
6. CoJlectc-orp also has offices in Canada, with n mailjng addre$S of415 Yowlge Street,
Suite 700, Toronto, Canada, M5B 2E7.
7. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers ~t the Defendants hides behind its p~nt company
in Canada, repeatedly violating Unit~ States laws' and then avoiding suit
8. At aU times pertinen~ hcrc:to, the Defendants. Wilson. Ware and Smith directed and
controlled the collection activities of C"ollectcorp.
9. At all times pertinent hereto; the Defendants, Wilson, Ware and Smith, knowingly,
wiUingly and/or intentionaUy, acted alone <md in concert to deceive, mislead, confuse
and/or mht:IWi$e threaten the Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt.
) O. At all times pertinent heretot the Defendants, Wilson, W:tre and Smith, are liable under
respondenr sl.fperwr.
II. At aU times pertinent hereto, the Defendants were negligent in theit perfonnance to direc.t
and control collection /lctivity.
12. At all times pertinent hereto, the DClfendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully aoted.
alone Md in canoe-It, by failing \0 mleqU!ltely train collection personnel
13. Violating provisions of the Fm! Debt Collection Practices Act liloo vioJroe the
Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a).
14. On or abo.ut January 2007, agents of the Defetldan~ contac1ed Plaintiffand his partner,
Ms. Rona Magaro, regardjng the allegoo debt
15. Defendants advised Plaintiff that he could talk to nnyonc he wanted to talk 10 regarding
his debt.
15, Defendmts further advised Plaintiff that he did not need permission to discuss the alleged
debt with Ms. Magaro, because she was hi~ ~ICOtl.1mon law spouse'! and that any debts that
Plaintiff had, she also harl,
17. Defendants further ad,'ised Plaintiff that he 0011 ld sell the house even though Plain tiff did
not own the house, because ME>. MagarQ was rt~-pun5ible for the alleged debt,
18. Defendants further stated that they were eharging interest and ihat every month, the
amount of the alleged debt WQuld substantially increa8e,
19. Plaintiff bas DO'contract Or other written agreement to pay interest to any of the named .
Defendants.
20. Plaintiffbo!il;ves and therefore Ilvm thal Defendants does not have a valid assignment
WId is therefore, unlawfuIJy attempting to co!1ect the alleged debt.
21. Plaintiff believes and therefore aVers tlwt Defendants added irrtaest to the alleged debt, in
violation of Pennsylvania law,
22, Dr::fendWl~ offered Plaintiff It settlement offer to avoid losing Me. Magaro's home.
23. PJaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that mnkJng.a Sl."ttlement offer is a pI'elude tv
litigation and-as such~ Plaintitfbelieved thm: litillation was imminent
24. OefendMts rarely, if ever, files ~ujt against consumer debtors as such, any infueocc of
litigation is a violation oftbe FDCPA.
COUNT I. PENNSYLVANIA. FAIR CREDIT
EXTENSION UND'ORMITY ACT 73: P.S. i2Z70 et seq.
A~nst ~ll DefendfUlts
25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as iffuIJy set forth herein.
26. The FDCPA states that a violation ofsta1e ]t\w is a vlo1ation oftbe PDCPA IS U.S.C,
~ 1692:0. PerwsyJvania law states, in pertinent parL. 18 Pa.C.S. F311:
"Unlawful collection agency practices,
(a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful for a ooUecti"o agency, for the purpose of
collecting or enforcing the payment thereof. to tak(l an assignment of any such
. claim from a credilQr. ffall of the ful10wing apply:
). The assignment between the creditors and colle()uon agency j:; in writing;
2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does llot prohiml
assignments .
3. The collection age.nc)' complies with the aQt of Decem bQr 37. 1968,..
(b.l)Unfair or deceptive methods. It is W11awfu! fur n collector to collect any
amoWlt, including l':ln)' interest. fee. ~ba:rge or ~pen;se incidental to the principal
obligation, unless such amount i& expressly provided in the ~ement creating the
debt or is pe:nnitted by law,"
27. PJaintiffbeLkwes and therefore avers that Defendanb violated this PfQvision of
Pennsylvania law.
28. Plaintiff further believe.s that Defendants violated provisiom; of the Fair Debt Collection
. .
Practices Act, as alleged in the General AJ1egations and. Count fit as wch, Sltid violl.ted
also violate the Pennsylvania FeED, 73 P.B, ~2270.4(a).
29, That Defendant!': engaged in unfai:r methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, as definoo by FeEU and the regulntions, jncluding but not lintitcd to. violations
of37 PaCode SP03.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3{I8). 303.6 and 73 P.S. 020'1.2(4).
30. DefendantS' acts as described herein were done with maliclous) intentional:. willful,
recldess, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's rights with the purpo~ of
coercing Phuntiffto pay the alleged debt.
JL As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive d81lUlges and attorney's tces and comB, in an amount of not J~s that $30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests tbat this Honorable Court is~ue judgment on his bebalf
omd against Defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive daxnages, attorney fees
and costs pursutult to 73 P.S. ~2270.5,
COUNT II .. FAIR DEBT COLLE-CTJON PRACTICE ACT
15 U.S.C. il692 ET SEQ~
Against all Defendants
32. Jurisdiction foc this actiun is usserted pursnant to the Fror Debt ColJcC1iol1 Practices Act,
15 U,S,C. ~1692) et scq. C"FDCFA"), particularly 15 U.S,C. ~1692k(d) and 28 U,S.C.
~1337.
33. Venue Hes in this Di~icipursuant to 28 V.S,C. 1391(b).
34, Plaintiff is an individu~l Md consumer pursuant to 15 U.S. C. ~ 1692a( 6).
35. Dl.'fendants are debt collectors as defined by IS U.S.C. ] 16913(3).
36. Agents of th~ Dcfendams made 1.el~houe calls to Plaintiff and Ms. MBgaro threate.ning to
sell Ms. MaglUU'S house to sMisfy the alleged debt.
37. DefeJJda%its comamoo Plaintiff and Ms. Magaro dU!ing JiUluary 2001, whicb are
"oommunicatinns" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 V.S.C. 1 I 692a(2) and 1692a(5).
38. At all pertinent times heretc, the ~fendant3 were hired to ooJ]cc.t a debt relating to a
oonsumer.1raJlsacdon. (Hereina.fterthe "alleged debt.'')
39. DefendMts cOJIUJlunicatoo with piaintiff on or after one year before the date of this
, . . .
action, in conn~tion with coJlection efforts, by le~ts, telepl~ contac:t or other
documents, with regard to pla.intlffs alleged debt.
40. rDCP A states that a violation of state: law is a VlQlation of the FDCP A. 15' ti:s:c.
gHi92n. Defendants viola1ed Pennsylvania law Mat~,18 Pa.C.s, ~731l, as stated herein.
41. The FDCP A states, a debt collecror may DfJt use: unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. IS VB.e. g1692J.: Defendants -yiolated this section
of the FDCP A.
42. The FDCP A states. a debt COUectQl' may not use false. deceptive or misreading
representatiun or means in connection with the colJe~o:n. of any debt. 15 US.C, ~1692e.
Defendants violated this section oftbe FDCPA.
43. The FDCP A states, a. debt collector may not ~ngage m any conduct the natural
oonscquence of which is (.0 luJ.ca!;s} oppress or ahuse "n)' petson in connection with the
coUection of a debt. 15 U.S.Co ~ 1692d. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
44. The fOCPA states, Ii debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the
collection of any debt, with uny person other than the consumer. 15 V.S.C. ~1692c(b).
Oefendants violated thios secti<Jn of the FDCPA,
45. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, withollt the
Plaintiffs prioJ: consent.
46. Tht= Defendants violated 15 U.s.c.. ~ 1692e(2){A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the
imminence oflega) nction by Defendaom.
47. The Defcndmts violated IS U.s.C. ~ 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff
had Jequestcd the Defclld!U1ts cease communication with the Plaintiff.
48. The mep A states, it i$ unlawful to de.'iign, compile and furnish my form knowing that
such focm would be used to create the false believe in a comUJ:XI.~ that a person other 1han
the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collection of or in an attempt t(l
QQJle~t a debt such conSumer allegedly owes: such cie~tor, when in fact such person is
not so participating. 15 U,S.C. ~1692j. Defend~t$ violated 1his section of the FDCPA.
49. The 'fDCP A pl'ovid~ cernu.n rights to.the COO8um~ reganJing bislher tight to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. y1692g. .Oefimdant~ violated this section Qfthe FDCPA.
50. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not communicate with a COWlUIlltn' at the
coosumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason 10 know tb~t
the ~umer's c:rnployer prohibits the. consume! from receiving such communications.
1.5 U.S.C. ~ 1692c(a)(3). Defendants violated tbis section ofthe FDep A.
51. 1'hc FOCP A states, it is unlawful to add interest, charges) fee:s or other co~ts unle$S
authorized by law or. conttact~.Plaintlff does not .have a. contract with Defendants.
15 V.S.C. ~1692fand ~1692e{2XA) and (H). Defendants violated this section of the
FDCP A.
52. Defendw:Wi'!'i collection conimurucations were in~entionaIly confusing, misleading and
olherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 1 S U. S. C. ~ 1692e{ 5) llIld (10),
~1692~8) and 91692;, see also, In re BeHle, 208B.R. 658 (n,D. Pa 1977),
53. Dofendants's communications created a faISt: 8COl3e ofuTgency on the past ofPlaintitf in
vlQ.lntion oftlie FDCPA. Tolentino 'II'. Frien~~, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D.lll 1993); ~
v. Hand. 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); r:md R~ v. Ga'YDOt',.784 F. Supp I (D.
Corm. 1989).
54. .Any thn::at of litigation is false if the Defendants rarely, sues consumer debtors or iftbe
Dcftmd~ did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bentlv v. Great Lakes Collection B~l!\b 6
F.3d 62 (2d'Cir. 1998), See also, 15 U.S.C. ~16!?2e(5}, l5U.S.C. ~1692e(lO).
55. At all time pertinent ftln'eto. the Defend8f\t<l"WaS acting by and through i~ agents, servants
fflld/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment. and
under the direct 9upcrv!sion and control of the Defendants he~ein.
56. At aU t!mtllS pertinent hereto, rhe oonduct of Defendatlts as well as their agentll. !.Iemm~,
anellor eJnpJ.oyees, was malicious) inrentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and thr. righ'bi of the Phlintiff herein.
57. Plaintiffoofiev~ and therefore avers that the Defendant5's agents made false threats of
litigation.
58, . Defendants' oS threat of litigau()n was false because Detbndants does not routinely file suit
against oonswDCl debtonl, in violatioIl of 1:5 V.S.C. ~ 1692e(S) and (10).
59. Defer1dants's letters "''ere intentionally confusing.and ~ve, in violation of J 5 U,S,C.
~1692e{S) and (10). ~1692f(8) and ~1692j.
60. Plaintiff was confused, d~jved and believed that litigation was imminent jf settlement
was not made.
61. The above mentiQned ncts with supporting C8SeS demonslrdles that the oonduct of
Defendants rL,eS to the- level needed f()[ punitive damages.
. .
62. Defendants l in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, intr:r alia, ~C1iol1s 1692., b, c,
d, e, f. g, h, andIo-r n.
63. D~fcndants, in its collectiOJl effo~, u:$ed fWse or deceptive acts and intended to oppre$S
and harass plaintiff
64. That, as a result ofth.e wrongful tacticG of Defcndant8 .ft!' aforementioned, plainliffhas
been subjected to imXioty, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which
CQ11lplmSation is sought.
WHEREFORE, PIaintiffrespectfully requm that his Honorable Cowt enter judgment
on'Plaintiffs behalf and against Defendallt.1iI and i~:'SuC' ap Order:
_ (A) Award PlaintiffstatutolJ' damages in the amount of One Thousand DoliAirn
($1,000.00) for each violation oftbe FDCPA or each separate and disc-me
incident in which Defendants have ylolak:d The FDCPA.
(B) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages fur anxiety, harassment,
and intimidation directed at liiIn in an amount not less. than Ten Thousand Dollm-s
($10,000.00). as wen as the repetitive nf!tu~ ofDefondants form letters.
0) Award Plaiutiff costs of this litigation, including. a .reasonable attorney's fee at a
rate of $350.00 per bour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff's a.UOmey in
vindicating Plaintiff's rights utld~r theFDCPA, permitted by 15 U,S.C.
g1692k(a)(3).
(0) Award declaratory and injunctive l'elief, and such other relief as this HonOJ~ble
CoUt1 deem5 necessary and proper or law or equity may provide,
. ,
COUNT IV - FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACf
65, Piainrlffhereby incorporat4!s the foregoing as if fully set. forth herein.
66. 1be Falr Credit Reporting at" 15 U.S.C, ~ 1681 b prohibits the improper use of a
consumer's credit intbrmation.
67. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the DefendantreportedfaJ9C~ misleading and/or
~naocarate 1nformatlon on PhliJ'1ti:frs credit report, without flnlt vididating the fJUeged
debt.
68.. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the. Defendant reviewed Plaintiffs credit report
without proper authority or assigmnent of the alleged debt.
. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespect.fuUy requests that his HOllOrable Court enter judgment
for Plaintiff and "l5ainst defendant sand issue lUi Order~
(A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand DuUars
($1,000.00) for each vk'llation of \he FCRA or each separate !lnd disaete incident.
in which Defendant have violated the FCRA. 15 V,S.C, ~J681n(a)(1)(A).
(B) Award Plaintiff general damag.es and punitive damages for anxiety. harassRltmt,
and intimidation directed at Plaintiff jn an runul.1Ill not less than Ten ThouslUld
Dollars ($10.000.00), as well 11... the repetitive nllture of Det~ndaot fonn letters.
C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a rea.sonable attotney)s fee at a
rate of $350,()OIhnur for hours reasonably expmdoo Plaintiff's attorney in
viudicmiDg bi5 rigbts under the FDCP A. p 'tted by. 15 U.S.C, ~ 1681n(3)C).
Dated:211107 By: /sID aooo
Deanna L ~ Saracco, AttoJ:Aey for Plaintiff
76 Greemnont Drive, BnQla, P A 17()25
Telephone 717-732.3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Emilil: S Ell'llccoLaw@aol.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire, of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin, do hereby certify that on the 16th day of March, 2007, I served a copy of
the Notice of Removal via the Court's ECF system as follows:
Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, P A 17025
SaraccoLaw@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY: sf Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire
Peggy M. Morcom, Esquire
J.D. No. 92463
4200 Crums Mill Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 651-3517
pmmorcom@mdwcg.com
Attorneys for the Defendants
\05 _A ILIABIPMMORCOMILLPG\248842\PMMORCOMl02985\oO I 05
5
f'-.)
t':-:~
<=
"..J
~
~
rn:TI
-..,J:D
::O~
s~
::r: -n
"J7")
""\,
,~r
-J>
~~
:x
""""'...
~
N
N
-0
=1:
w
C"
<..iI