Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-0468 07 - ~ loP C~~LL~€/J."'1- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Rona Magaro 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 in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to (X ) Attorney ( ) Sheriff. Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire 76 Oreenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Phone 717-732-3750 SaraccoLaw@aol.com j)1~Al4 Si~nature of Attorney Dated: 1/19/07 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): Dated: ,Jd.u ~~ ';J/Y}7 ( By: Deputy t ~ ~ '4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )v --() ~ p::> fi: ~ J::- z ;~.... en ~''i'" 1-" ~;s:: f:~(: p~c: z =< '"" c:::J = -.J c.... ;:1:.:. Z N N o "T1 --I I n1 "T1 -g Fj; :::19 c,~:~ ff~ !~5 :U zO ,")nl ::':'t 15 -< -0 :Jl'.: .r;;- .. o ~ e-~~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Rona Magaro, Plaintiff, No: 07-46g v. COLLECTCORP Corporation, and Civil Term Nicholas Wilson, Karyn Ware, an Jim Smith, an individual and Vice President of Collectcorp, 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 THI S 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 1a corte en forma excrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMED1ATAMENTE. S1 NO T1ENE ABOGADOO S1 NO T1ENE EL D1NERO SUF1CIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1C10N, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENC1A LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Rona Magaro, Plaintiff, No: 07-46Z 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 FCED, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a). 14. On or about January 2007, agents of the Defendants contacted Plaintiff and her Partner, Joseph Thorn, regarding the alleged debt. 15. Defendants advised Plaintiff that Ms. Magaro, the "common law spouse" of Mr. Thorn and that she was responsible for his debts. 16. Defendants further advised Plaintiff that he would be selling Plaintiffs home in order to satisfy the alleged debt. 17. Defendants further stated that they were charging interest and that every month, the amount of the alleged debt would substantially increase. 18. Plaintiff has no contract or other written agreement to pay interest to any of the named Defendants. 19. At all times pertinent hereto, the FDCP A applies to debt and alleged debts. 20. In this case, the Defendants alleged that Ms. Magaro owed the alleged debt. 21. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants do not have a valid assignment and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect the alleged debt. 22. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants added interest to the alleged debt, in violation of Pennsylvania law. 23. Defendants offered Plaintiff a settlement offer to avoid losing her home. 24. Defendants discussed Mr. Thorn's alleged debt in detail with Plaintiff. 25. At no time did Mr. Thorn give the Defendants his consent to discuss his alleged debt with Plaintiff. 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that making a settlement offer is a prelude to litigation and as such, Plaintiff believed that litigation was imminent. 27. Defendants rarely, if ever, files suit against consumer debtors as such, any inference of litigation is a violation of the FDCPA. COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. ~2270 et seq. Against all Defendants 28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 29. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 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." 30. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated this provision of Pennsylvania law. 31. 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. 92270.4(a). 32. 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 of3? Pa.Code SS303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. ~201-2(4). 33. 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. 34. 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. 92270.5. COUNT II - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT 15 U.S.C. ~1692 ET SEQ. Against all Defendants 35. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 V.S.C. 91692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 V.S.C. ~1692k(d) and 28 V.S.C. 91337. 36. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 V.S.C. 1391(b). 37. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 V.S.C. 91692a(6). 38. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 V.S.C. 11692a(3). 39. Agents of the Defendants made telephone calls to Ms. Magaro threatening to sell Ms. Magaro's house to satisfy the alleged debt. 40. Defendants contacted Ms. Magaro during January 2007, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 V.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). 41. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 42. 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. 43. FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 US.C. ~ 1692n. Defendants violated Pennsylvania law states,18 Pa.C.S. ~7311, as stated herein. 44. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 V.S.C. ~1692f. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 45. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 US.C. ~ 1692e. Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A. 46. The FDCP A 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 ofa debt. 15 D.S.C. ~1692d. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 47. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 D.S.C. ~ 1692c(b). Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A. 48. The Defendants violated 15 V.S.C. ~ 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 49. The Defendants violated 15 D.S.C. ~ 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 50. The Defendants violated 15 D.S.C. ~ 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendants cease communication with the Plaintiff. 51. 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. s1692j. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 52. The FDCP A provides certain rights to the consumer regarding hislher right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 D.S.C. S1692g. Defendants violated this section ofthe FDCPA. 53. The FDCPA 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. SI692c(a)(3). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 54. 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 V.S.C. s1692fand sI692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A. 55. Defendants's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 D.S.C. sI692e(5) and (10), SI692f(8) and S1692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (RD. Pa 1977). 56. 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. Ill. 1993); Sluys v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F. Supp 1 (D. Conn. 1989). 57. 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 V.S.C. sI692e(5), 15 D.S.C. sI692e(10). 58. At all time pertinent hereto, the Defendants was acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein. 59. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants as well as their agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 60. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants's agents made false threats of litigation. 61. Defendants's threat of litigation was false because Defendants does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 D.S.C. ~1692e(5) and (10). 62. Defendants's letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 D.S.C. ~1692e(5) and (10), ~1692f(8) and ~1692j. 63. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. 64. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of Defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 65. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 66. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 67. 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$3S0.00 per hour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff's attorney in vindicating Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 D.S.C. ~1692k(a)(3). (D) A ward 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 68. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 69. The Fair Credit Reporting at, IS V.S.C. S168lb prohibits the improper use ofa consumer's credit information. 70. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant reported false, misleading and/or inaccurate information on Plaintiffs credit report, without first validating the alleged debt. 71. 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 V.S.C. sI681n(a)(1)(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 FDCPA, p y 15 V.S.C. sI681n(3)C). Dated:2/1/07 By: Is/De Deanna Lynn Sara ,1\ orney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, P A 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com Q (::; ~ 5 .-f\ ~l ~ \"") cO ~ .....\ -r\ ~~ r ~. -1"1 .;:j "C,,\ rL) '" "~":;-\~ l, \-..;.~ 4'r-n ~:.") . :~::; ':.9.. -'0 ::> -:) f";. {JI \'.J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Rona Magaro, No: 07-468 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 DA TE OF NOTICE: MARCH 7. 2007 YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HA VE 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 MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORT ANT 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 ~. Deanna Lynn Saracco 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, P A 17025 (717) 732-3750 Attorney for Plaintiff (') C :S'". 1"--' c..~;;:: c:::::) -.....I --'''\ 1.---, -n ~:.. ~ ;:0 N -0 ..,"'" ~'" 0) o I.D IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Rona Magaro, No: 07-468 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: Alii Deanna 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. 3rd Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 Dated: 3/7/07 By: IS/D~saracco . Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. . 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 mallplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. ArtIcle Addressed to: 1 CO'< D. Is delively ~ ditrer8nt from Item 1 If YES, enter delivery address below: ~----,-,---~------- Karyn Ware, VP Collectcorp 455 N. 3rd Street Phoenix, AZ, 85004 3. SeMce ~ CI CertIfIecf Me/I CI Elcpress Mall I C_ C......_.._ C1111SU1'8C1 Mall 0 C.O.D. 4. RestrIcted DelIvery? j&tnt Fee) 0 Yes 2. Art1cIe Number (Ttansferfrom88fvfc 7002 0510 0000 1118'1 2010 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return ReceIpt 1Q2595.02.M.1540 I I . Complete Iterns 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted DeIlvery is desired. . Print your name and address on the AMlI'S8 so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mallp1ece, or on the front If space permits. 1. ArtIcle Addressed to: Jim Smith, VP Collectcorp 455 N. 3rd Street Phoenix,~,85004 2. ArtIcle Number (7tansfer f10m semcelsbel) PS Form 3811, February 2004 3. ServIce 1YPe CJ Cer1IIled Mall CJ Express Mall CJ RegIsterec:I CJ Return.ReceIpt for MerohandIse CJ Instnd Mall [J C.O.D. 4. RestrIcted DelIvery? (Extra Fee) CJ Yes 7002 0510 0000 1~B9 2003 DomestIc Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 n --~, 0 .-:~~~~! C ~ -n .--' :? :;;'~ I'll -n ?? r=::::; ~}~! .....,j N , () ---.. \j c"';. -.... -->>- --) l~\ ~1 (.J) -"~'I --.,.. :1J c::) .-<. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONA MAGARO, 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, PENNSYLVANIA RONA MAGARO, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTCORP, NICHOLAS WILSON, an Individual and CEO of Collectcorp, KARYN WARE, an individuals and Vice President of ) CIVIL DIVISION ) ) No: 07-468 ) ) ) ) ) ) Collectcorp, and JIM SMITH, an ) individual and Vice President of) Collectcorp, ) Defendants. ) JUR Y 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 Rona Magaro 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. 07-468. 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SS 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. ~2270 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. 9 1692, et seq. (Count 2), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 D.S.C. S 1681, et seq. (Count 4 sic). 4. Removal of Plaintiffs state court action is proper under 28 D.S.C. S 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. S 1331, 15 D.S.C. S 1692 and 15 D.S.C. S1681, and supplemental jurisdiction over Count 1 per 28 D.S.C. S 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. 9 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. S 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, PAl 7112 (717) 651-3517 pmmorcom@mdwcg.com Attorneys for the Defendants 4 01 ...",t.Y e, (.i(,-L ~ ~ Nicbolas Wilson" an individual. and CEO ofCollecworp. and Karyn Wart. an : individua.l and Vioe P'residentof Colleetoorp, Md Jim Smith, an individual and Vice President of Co116ctoOJP. 455 North 3111 Street, Suite 260 g ~ ~ Phoenix, ZA 85004-3924 'T';'.~ ....... I~'I"" ~::: Defend~Atf~) & Addresses ~ ~::::~ ~ ~~ : :~ {;;\ Rom Magaro Magaro Road EnoJa.. P A 17025 IN THE COIJRT OF COMMON PLEAS CUl\18ERLAND COUNTY, rENNSYL V AN1A CQl1Qcteorp 455 North 3M Street Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85004.3924 Plaintiffts) & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: .-( ff.i:IJ 'JF,:; {15? ,,-,...J ;:~ -=1j .'..;:(') om .. t ~ '"'" Please issue writ of swmnOJ1$ in the abov<>captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to (X ) A ttomey () Sheriff. Deanna L}'l11\ Suaool>. Esquire 76 Groenmont Drive Eoollt, Pennsylvania 17025 .Pbone 717M732.3750 Sw;cu;.ct>La'w@aol.ccm ~ Signature of Attorney Dated: 1/ 19/07 WlUT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): YOU ARE NOTIFfED THAT mE ABOV&.NAMBD PLA COMMENCBD AN ACTION AGAJNST YOU. D&t~d: d;JL:> ~~I ~7 By: 1RUI!COPv FROM RECORD " '-.nywhp,~J1~. 1 h'''.":">;1 ~~~,m.mr_~ '"~~~ ~~""....wit... VE Deputy IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERL.A!\'1) COlJNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA NOTICE TO PLEAD ~o THE DEP'ENDAN'l' ~ HEREIN: You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend agQl~6t the claims set forth in the follo~ing pages, you must take Qction \\'ithin 1:wenty (20) days afteI:' this Corr.plabt is ~erved, by ente::-ing a wri.tten appeaJ:cmce personally or by att.ot'ney and filing in writing !tlith t:he court your defenses or. objections to the claims set fo~th against you. You are wn~~ed tha~ if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without further notice tor any money claimed iu the Compla.l.nt, or fer any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lo~e money or proper-:.y or other riyhLtI import~nt to you. YOV' SHOULD TAKE ~aIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER A~ ONCE. IF YOU DO NO'!' HAW A IaAW1'J::R OR ONNO'l AFFORD ONE, GO 'rO OR ~EIJI:PftONE THE OFFICE SET FORTS SElI.OW TO ptIND OU'r WERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL BELP. Cumberlaod CGuoty Bar Association 31 S. Bedford Street, C*rlillle, P A l~nON990-9108)717-249~166 NOTICIA Le hdn demandadu a usted en la corte. 51 ust~d quire defendersp. de e~t~s demand~~ expu~tas en la$ pa9inaa siquient~~, u~ted tien~ v~ente (20} dias ~e pla~o al partir de l~ (echa de la e~orita Q en persona 0 por ab09ndo y arch~var en la corte ~rl ror~ eK~rita sus defenaa~ 0 BUS obje~tiones alas oernande, la oorte tOll1ara mcdid.aa y puede entra,..- UI'I~ orden cont=a llsled ~in pI~vio av1so 0 notificacion y por cualqui@r quej~ 0 alivio que as pedido en l~ peti~ion de denaltuio\. Voted puede pel:'d~4. dirtero 0 5US prQpiedades 0 otrm, d~rechos importantes para ust~d. L!.BVE 'BS'I'A DEWlNDA A :IN .ll.BOGADC IMMED I 1\.~ ~~t1TE . S I NO T! J:j Nt; ABOGt\DOO S I NO ~rENE ~~ Drn~RO SVFICIgNTE DE fAGnR ThL SERVrCIO~, ~YA EN PE~ONA 0 LLAMe POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA ~V~A DIRECCION SE pnE~F~QNSF.GUIR ASIST~~crA L~GAL. IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA RoM ~garQ~ Plaintiff, No: 07-467 v, COllJ?CTCORP CO;l"?oration. and . Nicholas Wilson, an indivtduol, and CEO ofCoIIectooIp, and Kwyn Ware, an 'individual and' Vice President of CollectcoIp. and Jim Smith. an individual and Vice Presiderrt' ofCollec'tOO1p, Defendaots. Civil Teon Jury Trial De.lnaJ1d~ ' COMPLAINT GENl.:RAL ALLEGATlONS 1. Jurisdiction for tbJs Aetion is Msened under the PClUlsylvWlia Fair CredIt E""lJ....>'f1~ion Unifoxmity Act; 73 P.S. ~2270 et seC). 2. Defendants, CoJlectcorp, is Ii business emit)' engaged in the busine:l1S Qf collecting conswner debts in this Commonwealth with 11 muiling address 455'Nolth Third Street, Sui1e 260, Phoenix, AZ 85004. 3. Defendants Nicholas Wil5QD, CEO, directs and controls the collection activity and is .'. ~.....,., -.,.' ., thC'Iefore,a debt coJiectoc engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth, with a mailing address in the United States of 455 N. 3n:1 Strem, Phoenix, AZ, g5004, and/or 400 E. VanBuren Street, Phoenix~.AZ 85004. 4. . Defendants Karyn Ware, VP, directs and controls the collection a.cti'Vity aIld is therefore, a debt collector engaged in the business of collecting debts within thi~ CommonweaJtb, with a mailing address in the United States of 455 N. 3r'd Street, Phoenix, AZ.85004. lUl&or 400 E. VanBw-eD Street. Phoenix, AZ 85004. 5. Defendants Jim Smith, vp. dircct~ and controls the coJlrxtion activity and is therefore) a debt collector engaged in the businc:ss of collecting dents within this Cc>~onwealtti. 'l/lIith 11 mailing address in the United States of 455 N. 3(d Street. Phoenix; AZ, 85004, and/Or 400 E. VanBuren Street. Phoenix. AZ 85004. 6. CoUectcprp aIsa bPs offires in Canada, with a mailing lLddress of 415 Y ()UngCl Street. Suite 700, Toronto. Canada., M5B 2R7.' 7. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants hides behind its parent compiUlY in Canada, repeatedly violating United StaleS laws and then avoiding sult 8. At.all times pertin\:nt. he~l the DefeDdanm, Wil$On. Ware and ~"Inith directed and controlled the collection activities of Collectcorp. 9. At all tiInes pertinent hereto, the DefendlWUi) Wl1son. Wal'e and Smith, knowingly. willingly and/or intentionally, acOOd alone and in concert to deceive. mislead, confuse . . .' - . and/or otherwise threat~n the Plaintift'into pa}ing the a!leged debt. 10. At all times pertinent hereto, the DefcndilIlt5, Wilson. Wa.re and Smith. are Uable under ~~pondent 9'Uperior. 1 I . At all times pertinent hereto, tbe Defendants were negligent in their penot'11lahCe to direct and control collection activity. 12. At all timeS pertinent hereto. the Defendmts knowingly, intentionally and willfully acted, alon.e and in concert. by failing to ',adequately train collection ,personneL 13. Violating provisions: of the Fair Pebt Collection Practices Act aLso violate the PcnnsylvanlnFCEU. 73 P.S. ~2270.4(j}}. 14. On or about Janunry 2007. agents of the Defendants CQ:otacted l' Jaintiff and her Partner, Joseph Thorn, regarding the alleged debt, . 15. ~fendants advised Plaintiff that Ms. Magaro. the "common law spou.se" of Mr. Thorn and that she was responsible for his debts. 16. Defendants further advis.ed Plaintiff that he would be selling Plaintiff'5 home in order ro satis:ry the alleged debt. 17. Defendants further stated that they were charging interest and that every month, the atnOWlt of the a11e~d debt would substantially increase. 18. Plaintiff has no CQnt:rnct or other writtell agre~rnt:nL to pay interest to any of the named Defendwlts. 19. At all tlmea pertinent hereto, the FDCPA appliea to debt and alleged debts. 20. In thi8 case~ the DefendtUrts alleged that Ms. Magato owed thci alleged debt. 21. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants do not have a valid aslrigoment and ig tl\eretbre, unlawfully attempting to cone~t the alleged.debt. 22. PlWntiffbclieve~ aud therefore avers that'DefendlUlts added interest tQ the alleged debt, in violation of pennsylvania Jaw. 23. Defendants off0l'ed Plaintiff a settlement offer to avoid losing her home, 24. Defendants diSClJssed Mr. Thorn's alleged debt in detai.l with ?laintiti. 25. A.t no timfol did Mr. Thorn gi'\'e 1he Defendants his consent to disc:uss his aU~ged debt wilh Plaintiff: 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore 2I'Vers .that makiug:6. S\':t11em~t offer -is a prelude to Htigationand as such. Plaintiftbelieved t:hat litigation was imminent. 27. Defendants rarely, if ever, files suit ~ainst consumer debtors ~ .suoh, any'inference of litigation is a violatiotl ofthc FDCPA. COUNT I - PENNSYLV ANlA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ,~CT 73 P.8. ~2270 et seC). Against aU Def-eadan-rn 28. l'Inintiffhereby incorporates the foregoing as 'If fuJJ)' set forth herein. 29, The FDCP A states that a violation of state Jaw is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. ~IG92n, Pennsylvania law states, in pertinem part. 18 Pa.C.S. F311: "Unlawful oollection agency pl'actices. (u) Assignment of claims. rt is lawful for a conection agenCYt for the purpose of coUecting or enforcing the payment thereof, to take an assignment of any such claim from a \;rediwr, if aJl of the fQllowing apply: 1. The assignment between the creditors and (X)llection agency is in writing; 2. The Qriginal agre~ment between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit assignments. 3. The collectiQn agency complies with the act of December 17) 1968... " . (b. 1 )Unfail' or deceptive methods. 11 is unlawful for a collector to collect any atnount~ including any interest, fee, charge or ex.pense incidental to tfle principal , . .' . QbJigatiOll, unIesB such amolUlt is expressly provided in the agreement cteating the c:k:bt or is permitted by law." 30. PJaintiffbelicves and therefore avers that Defendnnts violated this provMoo of Pennsytvania law. 3 t. Plaintiff furt.her believes that Defendtl!1ts violated PwyjstQns of the Fair.Debt CoHection Practice~.Act, as alleged in.the'Ge.llei-al Allegations and C01.mt II, as such, said violated also violate I.h~ Pennsylvania FeED, 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a). 32, . 'Ibm Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and u.ofair or deceptive acts o~. .. ...._, ptact:lce5, a$ defined by FCEU and the regulations, including but not limiWd to, violations of37 Pa.Codc: 9~303.3(3), 303..1(14), J03'~3(18), .303.6 and 73 P.S. ~2Ql.2(4). 33. Defendants' acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentioned, wj]Jful, reck1~ss, negligent and wanton disregard fur Plaintiff s ri~ts \Vi th the purpose 'Qf ~ICing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 34. As a resuJt of the above vioiations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, ~tuaI, treble and punitive damages and attorncy's fees and com, in an wnount of not less that $30,000,00. . . , . WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests tbat litis Honorable Court issue judgment on bis beMlf and against Defundants f{)! n statutory penalty, treble dwnogcs, punitive damages, anomey fees tmd costs pursuant to 73 P.S. S2270.5. COUNT Il . FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRAcneE ACT 15 V.S.C. ~1692 ET SEQ. Against all Defendan1s 35. JurisdictJem for this action is asserted PunJuant to the Fair Debt Collection PractiOO8 Act,' 15 V.S.C: ~1692, et seq. ('fFDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.c. gI692k(d) and 28 U.8.C. ~1337, 36. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 139l(b). 37. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuan~ to 15 U.S.c. ~1692u(6). ."4-:' 38. Defendants are debt collec1.Ors as defined by l5 D.S,C. 11692<'1(3), 39. Agmts of the Defendants made teJepMn~ calls to Ms. Magan> threatening to sell Ms. .' . ~ . ,~: .' . ~'" ' Mag8to's house to satisfy 1he aIJeged debt. 40. De~endants oontacted Ms. Magaro during Januqry 2007, which ,are "communicatiQns" relating to a "debr' as defined by 1S U.S.C. 1 1 692a(2) and 1692a(5). 41. At aU pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired:to coIJe(;t a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the '~alleged debt.'") 42. Defendants communicated, with,p!frlntiffon ot,a,&[ one year before the dale oftbis action, in connection with ,collection efforts. by letters, telephone ~OQmct or other documents:, with regard to plaintiff's alleged debt, 43. FDCPA states that a violation ofstllte law is a violation of the PDCPA. 15 U.S.c. ~ 1692n. Defendants vio lat~ Pennsy 1 vanillla.w stares.1S P a. C. S. ~ 7 31 J 7 as stated herein. 44. The FDCPA states. a debt oo)1ectormay not use unfair or unconscionable menns to coHect qr attempt t~ .collect any d~bt. 15 U,S.q. ~ J 692f. Defendants violated tbi::; section of the FDCP A. 45. The FDCPA states, a debt collector m~y not W3C false. deceptive ()r misleading representaiiQn or means in ti:01U1ection with the ooUection of any d~bt 15 U.S.C. ~ 1692e. Defendants violated this secticm. of the FDCPA, 46. The mep A stat~, a debt collector may not engage in any conduc1 the natural co~equence of which. is to harass, oppress or abuse aD.YJ)erson in conneroon with the collection ofa debt. 15 V.S.C. ~ 1692d. Defendant:! violatw this rection of tne FDCP A. 47. The FDCPA state:!, Ii d~bt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection orany debt> with any person other than the consumer. lS V.S.C. 91692c{b), Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA 48. The Defendants violaltld 15 V.S.C. ~'1692c(b) by contacting a tlrird party, without the Plaintifr$ prior consent. 49. The Defendroms violated 15 U.S.C. ~ 1 692e(2)(A). (5) and (lQ) by misrepresenting tbe inmlinence onega! action by Defendants. 50. The Defendants viQlated 15 V.S,C. fi 1692c by contacting thc.Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requ~sted the Oefmdants cease communication with the Plaintiff. 51. The PDCP A states, it i$ unlawful to de~jgn. compile and furnish any form knowing tl1l'rt :ludl form would be used to create the fat~e believe in a ccnSUlneT that a person other than the creditor ofsuch consumer it participating in the colIection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such conswner allegedly O\\'eS such creditor, when in fact such person is not' so 'participfJtiog, 15 U.s.C. ~ 1692j. Defendants violated this section of the FOCP A. 52. Th~ FDCP A provid~ certain rights to the consumer regarding hislher right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. ~1692g. DefendllI1ts vio!uted this section of the FDCPA. .53,. The FDCPA states, a debt collector IDilynot.conimuniciUewith aeonsumer 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 ~ch communications. 15 V,S.C. ~1692c(a)(3), Defendants vio~ated this section of tl1~ F,DCP A. 54. The FDCP A states, it il$uulawful to add inrerest,.charges. fees or other costs unless authorized by law or contract; Plaintiff does not have a contract with Defendants. 15 V.S.C. ~ 1692f IlDd ~ I 692c(2)(A} and (3). DefendantG violated lhirs ~ction of the FDCP A .5:;'. Defimdant~'s oollection communications were jntentionally confusing. misl::llding and otherwillie d<'Oeptive to the Plaintiffs., in violatic)rt of 15 U,S.C. ~1692e(~) and (10), ~ I 692fC.8) .and ~ l69Zj, ~ also, In n: Be1i1~. 208 fiR 658 (E,D. Pa 1977). 56. Defendants's communications created'a mIse sense of urgency on the past oi'Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman.. 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ill. 1993); SIuys v. Hand) 8J1 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y.199.3); and &Q~a v, Gaynor, 784 F. SUP!' 1 (0, Conn. 1989). 57. Any threatoflitigatiQn is false if the Oefendanb rarely} sues OOl1SUltlcr debtors or jf the DefendtUlbdid not intend to SUe Lhe Plaintiff. Bently v. Gl:eat J .akes Collection Bureal,b 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S:eo ~1692e(5), 15 V.S,C. g1692e(10), 58. At all time pBrtinent hereto, the Defendants was acting by and through its ~mls, ~rvams and/Ot' employees, who W'e.n;: ~~ling within the scope and course oftheit employment, and under the cUred supervisiOn and control of the Defendants herein. 59. At all time~ ptrtinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant8 as well as their agent~, servants, and/or employees., was malicious. intentional. wil1fuJ. reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard fur federal and state law and the righte of the Plaintiffherej,u, 60, Plaintiffbel1eves and therefore avers ~ the Th::tei.dants's agents made fulse '~ts of litigation. 61, Defendan~'B threat of litigation was false because Defendants doeflllot routinely file ~uit againllt consumer dt!lbtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 91692e(5) and (10). 62. Defundants's letters were intentionally confusing ana de,ceptive. in violation of 15 U.S.~. ~1692e(5) and (10), ~1692f(g) and ~1692j. 63., Plaintiff was confused, deceived at'ld believed that litigation was io:unin.ent if settlement was not made, 64. The above mentioned act.'l. with supporting cases dcmonstrlrtes that the oonduct of Dt'Jelldants rises'to the le.vel needed for punitive damages. 65. Defendi'mts} jn its collection ~fforts, violawd the FDCP A. inter alia, Sections 1692t b. ~ d. e, f. g, ~ and/or n. 66, DefendlUrts,1n its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acUl and intended to oppress and harass plaiJrt;jff, 67, That, as n. result of the wrongful tactics of Defimdants as atorementioned) plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, h8f8S$mentl intimidation and annOYMe<: forwmch compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, 'Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on PlaJntlff's behalfand against Defendants and iss'Uel1t) Order; (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One 1bousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or tl!lCh separate and discrete incident in which Defendants have violated the FDCP A. (B) AWard Plaintiff general damages aud punitive dmnages for anxiety, barassment, and irrthnjdation directed at him in an amount n~ less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10.000.00), as ""'011 as the repetitive MtUrc of Defendants form letl~!ii. 10) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation. lnd uding a reasonabl e attorney's fee at a rare of $350.00 p::r hOt., for hours rea~ona.bly expended by Flaintfff's attorney in vindicating Plaintiff's rights und~ the FDC?A, permitted by 15 U.S.c. ~1692k(a)(3). (D) Award declaratory!l.11d injunctive relief, and mch other relief as litis Honorable Court deem:! necessary and proper or Jawor equity may provide. COUNT IV ..FAIR CREDIT RE~RTIN~ ACI 68. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the fOJcgoing as iffuUy set forth herein. 69. The Fair Credit Reporting at, 15 U.S.C. ~1681 b,prohibits the improper use of 2l , oonsumer's credit information. 70. PWntiffbelieves and ,therefore avers that the Defendant reported fal!;e, misl"ading andlQr inaccurate information on Plaintiff s roedit report, without first validating the alleged debt. 71, Plaintitfbelieves and therefore avers that the Derendant reviewed Plaintiff's credit report without proper aulhority or assignment of the alleged debt. WHEREFORE, Pltrintiff respectfully.requests that his HOQQrable Cowi enter judglnent tor Plaintiff and against defendMt'stmd j~ .un Order: (A) Award Plaintiff Slalutl)ry damages in the amount of One ThollSand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FeRA or each separate end discre~ incident in wbichDefendantbave violated the FCRA 15 U.S.C, 91681n(a)(t)(A). (IJ.) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages for anxiety> haraslmlent, , , and intimidation directed at Plaintiff in an amount not 1f;}.SS than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), a.8 well as th~ rcpetitive nature of DefendlU1t form letters. C) Award Plaintiff cOfSls of this litigation. inoluding a I'eElSOnabJe attorney's:fee at a rate of$350.00Ihollr for hours reasonably expended Plaintiff's attorney jn vindicating his rights under the FDCP A. P 15 U .S.C. ~ J 68In(3)C). Dated:21l107 My: /, acco lJeanna Lynn S I tt,omey for, P Jaintiff 76 Greemnon! Drive: Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 7J7-nS-9498 Email:. SaraccoLa W@aQLcotn 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 \Os _A ILlAB\PMMORCOMlLLPGI2 483 91 IPMMORCOMl0298S\00 1 04 5 ,...., c:::> {:;;;:) -J ::r: :;p- ;;0 N .." ::1t ~ :?-, :!J f1r -0 mcg -0 C~'f. :1:( ;., :D " c"') :;':::rn o -.-\ 55 ;...:: r:-? x:- c...;;