HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-06296
\ \
....J
-
\.
\l
~
,.....
I :t
iU
,
I
I
!
i ~
I
,
,
,
i S
l~
, ...
Iv)
I
i
,
i
i
,
I
,
I
I
i
I
i
I
i ~
I
~
"
. ...
.::\
,
c:J
, '-S
~
f")
'-S.
I
00
~ ~
1
.
~:
!'utl;:')
.l) Plalrlltl!. ('I;,ld ~l"ldl'l", !', ;Hi Illdl\'ldlldl n.':,.\dlll~' ::1 ('~j:::~)~'rj,nll! ('llUll!~, Pef\n~iyl\'allia.
~) PI;lllltllll'. L'IHplu\\.'d .I:, prt''-,Hh.:nt uf a husiness tll,11 lS Ill\olvcd in collections, primarily
l'olkctllll', pl'l-"oll;d Cl1l'l'~~ (hit! \\l'rc dl"lInlllHl'd h\ 1hl' Illdl\'ldual chcck.wrill'rs' linancial
institutions.
()) Ikfcndanl Jll:111I1L' h.nilkIlcr IS an attopu:y \.,ill) IS l()ca\t.,:d at j ~~1 A\"tm Strcct. Nc\\' Ila\'en.
( 'on:wcllu,t
(;eneml Alle~1l1iOlH
7) On or ahout the ",llowing speeilied dates, the Jtlllo",in!', aetion was taken hy Defendanl:
A) Defendant tiled live (5) lawsuits against S"iders individually, in 1998 Ihus far,
despite knowledge that Seiders is parI of a corporate entity and the corporate
entity is both insured and has been linanoially anle to settle lawsuits with
Defendant in the past.
8) In the lawsuits referenced in Paragraph 7 above ("lawsuits"), all of Defendant's clients
wrote bad checks to clients ofCRA,
9) In the lawsuits, Defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debl Collection Practices Act, 15
U,S,c. S 1692 et.seq" ("FDCPA") which provides Itlr stalutory damages of lip to
SI, O()(J, O(J plus attorney fces,
10) In the lawsuits. Defendant brought suit against Plaintiff. with no factual basis to pierce
the corporate form,
I!) Plaintiff did not commit any tortious act that would make him individually liable,
12) Plaintiff believes and has knowledge that Defendant's primary practice is illegally and
wrongfully making demands for paymenl or maliciously filing lawsuits against
lIlt! i\ i d i l;li" .n it! "::: It: t" : ~:> ~' ,
. '" . t : j r ~ " "
13) PldllltJtf he II L'\ 1,.'>, ;llld h.l'o ~ri(l"'" ;Cd)T II ,,!i 1 I,'ll-;,!.!.l:;:'" l lil'n:', I:; the Jil\\,';lllts lJa\'~ !lot
p.lld j'p: tilL'): \\li:!L::.",, {ldd ...r;l'l.~. ;"ld Oint':- !:j;l'fhl t:l ;~;I~ :(;r t:llo;r \\orthlc:>s/bad checks,
!'I:lllltilfhl'hnc\ ~;U! ] ,:':!L'/;d,trd !':it,., c;;[ :~;::l t;l:t':l~(,;i', :q'.l: ~jC::t,;; t"IH 11H." purpose of
shielJillg her Lojlerlt~; from CTIIllIIU! ,Ull1 LJ\ d ll.lhdlly
14) l inder Conneelicul law, an individual who writes a oad check is liaole I(lr ei vii penalties
and in some instances. t:riminal p~naltil's.
15) In the lawsuits, several oi'Dei'endant's clients arc "Inult'j':c "flende,," mearn:Jg they
wrote more than one \\'orthkss/bau check and never paid for Dr returned the merchandise,
16) PlaimilTbelieves that several oi'De!cnd,"'t's clJents arc in bankruptcy and PlaintilThas
never received notice i'rom the Bankruptcy Court toat any seltlement monies were
reported to the trustee,
17) Plaintiffbclieves and has knowledge that Defendant's practices and procedures arc
unethical and possibly illegal and have been perpetraled on numerous individuals and
entilies throughout the United States,
18) Even if the returned check fee was not permilted in Connecticut (said undetermined fee
"
~..'
was made a determined amount of $20,00 in the beginning of this year) the statutory
damages are up to $1,000,00, much more than Defendant requests in a settlement.
19) The tactics referenced in Paragraphs 18 are part of Defendant's scheme to defraud and to
seek monies from Plaintiff through unconscionable an illegal means,
20) Piaintiff believes that an individual who knowingly writes a worthless/bad check is
perpetrating a fraud and as such, the FDCPA docs not apply,
21) Plaintiff did not personally altempl to collect from Delendant's clients,
,
1'.
~'}) Ikli:lldalll filed lll,dll'l(l\l', l\','.ll ;\(l;,\:i', ;11',.111\\1 l'lallllllllll ;Ill attcmpt to I.'xtort 11111!\1l'~;
from Plilllltllf III r,1I1"l' lntcrkr\'nt.l' '.\I:h 1'1all1l11!'" hll"iJ:l'\\ dcd tn ("il:I"\' Injury ,md
dalll.1}'c ttll}l,llritllt~:, ft'P,,;,:!: l' ~i', ,', ;'1",1;\ a:',\! i!\.Il: I[)\;.:', t,,', ,',' "!' k:;t!::.l:,lf"
, , ~ . ! : ( . : I I ~ ' : : ; ...
:J) As nl" thl' lLite or tlll:-. ('\l!l1jll.llllt. l;l.:i': ~)t !)dl.'IHblll's cllt'nt>> Iii tlll~ la\..Slllts h,I\T jMld for
their \\'urthks:.'/b,ul cllcd"
24) As of the datI' or till'; (\lll1pLul~L 1~',}tH' \)I"! },It'l1dal1t'~; cllt'nts In till' i.\\'.:,ll;l:; hil\'l~
returned the mcn.:handise III the stores,
Co IwiL 1:"[jJll(l~llliLCo"s fJiTIl('!' r(LJ)rJm~j
25) I'laintilThereby Illcorporates Paragraphs 1 through !.\ as inully sd !()flh hew!:,
25) l)ercl1lJanl misrcpres':ntcd tllat the "llegations ,,~J oernamh Ill( mOlley were valid legal
daims,
26) Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check is a tortious
activity pursuant to Connecticut law,
27) Under Connecticut law. failure to pay a dishonorcd check or draft is prima facie evidcnce
of intent to defraud,
28) Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check may be a criminal
under Connccticut law,
29) Defendant knew that defending a lawsuit in Connecticut would be both costly and time
consuming to Plaintiff. regardlcss of the results,
30) Defendant madc thcse misrepresentations with the intent of inducing Plaintiff into settling
malicious legal actions,
('O;4li( //, /I~i(~mattofj
.:0:
l',.I,;~~ .~ ',l'~ '~,
~;, t .. I ' .
':::1,_,/';' ;',
...:' .1': :;'::.. Ie,':..:l::
41) Ikklld,t;:t 1l1.a:t' \ (lnl.l~ 1 ..\ :\r', ,1tl(lr"r~', ::lr(lU~J.hil\Jl tnt' ~, ; .:c:d :';t;i~'':~; fur the pUrpll~l' oj
illltl!l!\l!T ....,nd ,Il!llllit'~'. III her \ChCllll: to lkfratld Pl;untll!
4:') J)l'knda:\~ d."( ~;.",t'd ~~t'li.h':', ~o (l::1l'f Pi;l;!,::tr" dilurl:t.'Y" \'.ho tht:n made sImilar demands
or tikd slInilar iaw~llits against Seiders using similar tadics.
43) Dcfendanl eaused to be published deliun..tory statements such as:
a) that. I'I.ullt1ll has GHlsed harm or damage to Ilckdant 's cliems by sending one to
thn:e bL'll:!.~;" ;ettcrs feqUl'st!!lg payrnt:Jl: :,r iJ;:d Ciil'Lk' S \','fitt::n tl)' said chents:
b) that. I'Ialllt1llhas attempted to collect monies from Defendant's clients in an
attempt to deceivc said clients when in tilC\, these amount were iegally owed to
Plaintiff's clien:s:
c) that, PlaintilThas violated certain laws and statues governing the collection of
worthless/bad checks,
44) Such statements made by Defendant were false and made with the intent to injure
Plaintiffs business reputation or for the purpose of oppressing Plaintiff into paying
monies for acts that Plaintiff did not participate in or commit.
45) Defendant's acts of defamation wcre committed knowingly. wiilfully. wrongfully and
maliciously and without legal justification or excuse,
46) As a result of Defendant's publication of such defamatory statements and contacts with
other attorneys, Plaintiff has been injured in its good name, business interest and
reputation in the business community in an amount yet to be ascertained,
\
.
\
,
.
"
.,
!
:\
~
--..9
..........
~ '0
" ~
.-
" . 'l> - \ - ""
~'" \~
,'..
, ~ -~ .........
: .~
r.,,' I"V1
: .I '<) -....
~ J ......
, .1: ~ ----
,.; -----
, '-;-.J ~ \")
(, ---..., ,..\,
... f'
r'\"< ~, "0 ~
~ v 0
).'~v lONOHlO'dd ....................
. '!!d:JV''?'0'!J'i)'([.,?F,;Y/RF,........
03lVlSNI3'd .LNIV18V'lO'J
''Jb61 .""" ,,,,,,..,,'" 'F''''?fY'iiWi.'
>- r-.
c; P:
j::.
lur- f-'
0.',
~!,., '.
g'
'. C-,
U"
:-::', (
""
~.
u_ ("'.\
() .'
H, With rcspl'l'1 10 Ihc l'II\'''li" set lilllh Oil Paragraph 7 of Ihe t 'olllp1ainl. Iklcndanl
I
II
I
I
Joallnc Faulkllcr I"" had 110 l'Olllal'ls wilh thc ('OIlIlIlOIl\Vealth or Pcnllsylvallia Oil which 10 hasc
personal jurisdiction ovcr hcr inPcnllsylvania,
I), With respecl 10 any c1ailllmadc in Plainlifl's Complainl, Dc!clldant Joanne Faulkner
has had no conlacls wilh Ihe Comlllonwealth of Penllsylvania on which III hase personal jurisdiclion
over her in Pennsylvania,
10, ('ountlll of the Complaint makcs a claim ofdefiullation and sets forth no filCls thaI
support personal jurisdiction over Defendant for said claim,
11, Defendant Joanne Faulkner docs not have conlacts wilh the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. nor has Defendanl Joanne Faulkncr lakcn other actions which would justify
jurisdiction of the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over hcr, pursuant to 42 Pa,C,S,
12,
Defendant Joanne Faulkner docs not have nor has she had sufficient contacts with
i
,
"
,
I
,
~:
~5322,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over her under
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
the exercise of said jurisdiction over her would not conform with the requirements of due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
13, Defendant Joanne Faulkner has taken no actions and has had no contacts with
Pennsylvania that would reasonably lead her to expect to be hailed into the courts of Pennsylvania,
and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania,
2
ahso1ulely privilegcd, Thcreforc, Plaintill's Complaint docs nol slalc a claim for Ii-aud undcr
applicahlc la\\',
21, As a mallcr of la\\'. Plainlill's Complaint docs nol sct IClrlh a valid claim tClr fraud
based on applicahle law,
22, The allegations of Count I do not give rise to any cause of action againsl Plaintiff,
B. Plaintiff lias Failed to Plead Adequate Facts
to Estahlish a Cause of Action of Fraud
23, Plaintill's Complaint docs nOI state with suffieicnt specificity thc fraudulcnt
statements or acts alleged to have been made or perfonned and whelher the fraudulent statements or
acts were oral or in writing,
24, Plaintiffs Complaint docs not specifically set forth a time and place of the alleged
fraudulent statements or acts,
25, Plaintiffs Complaint docs not set forth facts that support allegations of justifiable
reliance and, based upon the facts set forth, justifiable reliance can not be established,
26, Plaintiffs has failed to set forth damages to sustain his fraud allegations,
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joanne Faulkner requests that judgment be entered in her favor
and against Plaintiff on Count I oCthe Plaintiffs Complaint and that Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint
be dismissed with prejudice,
III. Motion for a More Specific Pleading
With Respect to Count I of the Complaint
Fraud and Conspimcy to Defraud
27, Paragraphs I through 26 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
28, Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint attempts to set forth a oause of action for fraud,
4
days of the Court's Order. with ('ollmll orthe ('omplaint 10 he dismissed. with prejudice, ifPlainlin'
fails 10 file a more specific pleadillg,
VI, Demurrer to Count III of the Complaint
Defamation
42, Paragraphs I through 41 are incorporated herein as if fully sel forth,
43, Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause ofaclion for defamation,
44, Plaintilf has not set forth specifically what statements constituted defamation and
what specifically was slated or published hy Defendant.
45, Plaintiff has not set forth to whom the said defamatory statements were made and
when they were made,
46, Plaintiff has not set forth whether said defamatory statements were in writing or
made orally or otherwise,
47. The statements alleged to have heen made by Defendant, as set forth at Paragraph 43
of the Complaint, are not defamatory and facts are not set forth in the Complaint that make said
statements defamatory,
48, Plaintifrs allegations of fraud arc based on communications alleged to have been
made by counsel preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, in the institution of or during the
course of and as part of a judicial proceeding in which Plaintiff participated as counsel and which
statements had some relation to the proceeding, which statements are absolutely privileged and
49, Plaintiff has failed to set forth adequately the damages suffered by Plaintiff,
therefore cannot be the basis of a defamation claim,
particularly any special damages,
7
WHEREFORE. Defendant Joanne Faulkner requests that judgment he entered in her favor
ami against PlainlilT on Count III of Ihe Plaintiffs Complaint and that Count III of Plaintifl's
Complaint he dismissed with prejudice,
VII. Motion FOI' a More Specific Pleadinl' With
Rcspectto Count III of the Complaint
Defamation
50, Paragraphs 1 through 49 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
51. In Count III of the Complaint, Plaintiff makes a claim against Defendant Joanne
Faulkner based upon allegations of defamation,
52, Plaintiff fails to set forth with sufficient specificity the defamatory statements and to
sufficiently identify what was alleged to have been said, stated or published by Defendant.
53, Plaintifl's Complaint fails to state whether all alleged defamatory statements are
contained therein, in that Paragraph 43 states "the Defcndant caused to be published defamatory
statements such as:"
54, Plaintiff must set forth all alleged defamatory statements in the Complaint and the
phrase "such as" must be stricken from the Complaint, in that it may pennit an open-ended
opportunity to amend the Complaint to add additional alleged defamatory statements in the future,
55, Plaintiff fails to set forth with sufficient specificity the identity of any person to
whom said alleged defamatory statements were made,
56, Plaintiff fails to set forth with sufficient specificity when each and every defamatory
statement was made,
57, Plaintiff fails to set forth how said defamatory statements were made, that is,
whether they were in writing, made orally or otherwise stated,
8
58, PlaintifT has failed to set forth adcquately the damages suffered by Plaintiff,
particularly any special damages,
59, Defendant Joanne Faulkner cannot prepare an adequatc Answer to Ihe Complainl.
nor a defense to this mallcr, without a more specific pleading to the Defamation claim and a more
specific pleading should he Ordercd,
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joanne Faulkner requests this Honorable Court enter an Order
striking "such as" from Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, directing Plaintiff to file a more specific
pleading as to Countlll of the Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Court's Order, with Count
III of the Complaint to be dismissed, with prejudice, if Plaintiff fails to file a more specific pleading,
VIII. Demurrer to Count IV of tile Complaint
Unfair Business Practices
60, Paragraphs 1 through 59 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
61, In Count IV of the Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth a claim under the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P,S, ~201-1.
62, The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law provides for a private
cause of action only for a person "who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal,
family or household purposes...." 73 P,S, ~201-9,2,
63, The Complaint docs not make a claim which arises out of the purchase or lease of
goods or services by Plaintiff or out of the purchase or lease of goods or services primarily for
personal, family or household purposes,
64, The Complaint does not set forth any conduct that falls within the Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
9
65, Counl IV "flhe COlllplaint relics onlhe allegalions of COlli II I oflhe Complaint and
ifCounll ofllie COlllplaint is dismissed, llien ('ounllV IIIl1sl also be dismissed,
WIIEREFORE. Dclclulanl Jo;u1l1e Faulkner requests llialjudgment be entered in her litvor
and against Plainliff on Count IV of the Plainlirl's Complaint alld Ihal Count IV of Plainlifrs
Complaint he dismissed wilh prejudice,
IX. J)clllul'rcr to Rcqucst for Iniunclion
66, Pamgmphs I through 65 arc incorporalcd hcrein as if fully set forth,
67, Counts I and IV of Plaintirl's Complaint requcst moncy damagcs and. in addition,
rcqucsts thaI Dcfcndant Joannc Faulkncr bc cnjoincd from various aClivitics,
68, Thc Complaint docs nol sct forth adcquatc facts to cSlablish any right to injunctivc
rclicf.
69, Thc Complainl docs not sel forth any allcgations that cntitlc Plaintiff to injunctivc
rclicf.
WHEREFORE, Defcndanl Joannc Faulkncr rcqucsts that judgmcnt bc cntcrcd in her favor,
dismissing with prcjudicc lhe claims for injunctive rcliefin Counts I and IV,
X. Motion to Dismiss
RCQucst for Injunctive Relieffor Improper
.!l!ininl! of ReQucst for Iniunctive Relief
In An Action at Law
70, Paragraphs 1 lhrough 69 arc incorporated hercin as i I' fully sct forth,
71, Plaintifrs COlllplaint scts forth an action at law for damagcs,
72, In the Whcrefore clause of Counts I and III the Plaintiff has add cd a rcquest that
Defendant be enjoined from certain aetivitics,
10
73, Plainliff has improperly joined his claim f(lr iluunclion wilh his claim f()r monelary
damages in Ihis aclion at law and. Iherel(lrc. Ihe claim lilr injnnetive re/ief should he dismissed or
slricken/rom lhe Complain!.
WHEREFORE, Defendanl requeslsjudgment in hcr favor and againsl PlaintilT dismissing
or slriking the claim tal' injunclive re/ief fromlhe Wherefore clau,es of Counts I and IV,
XI. Demurrcr 10 I{C(IUcst for Attorncy's Fccs
74, Paragraphs I Ihrough 73 arc incorporaled herein as if fully set forth,
75, In Counls I. II and III of the Complaint, PlainlilT has set forth a claim in the
Wherefore clauses for attomey's fees, J Ie docs nOl set forth any basis for awarding attomey's fees to
Plaintiff in this action in Counts 1.11 and III.
76, Under the Common Law or Statutory Law of Pennsylvania, there is no basis for
awarding altomey's fees to Plaintiffonlhe basis of the allegations of Counts 1.11 and III.
WHEREFORE. Defendant requesls that judgmenl be entered in her favor and against
Plaintiffjn striking the request for attorney's fees frol11 the Wherefore clauses of Co un Is I,ll and Ill,
dismissing said requests with prejudice,
XII. Failurc of the Complaint to Couform
to Law or Rule of Court
77, Paragraphs I through 76 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
78, The Plaintifrs Complaint is based on or arises out of lawsuits initialed by Defendant
Joanne Faulkner on behalf of her clients. as set forth at Paragraph 7 oflhe Complaint.
79, Plainlifrs Complaint appears to be based, at least in part, on writings, including the
Complaints filed in those actions,
II
, ,
':.">,j
80, I'laintitT ha~ li,iled to allaeh to hi~ Complaint a copy of the writing~ on which his
cau~c ofaclion i~ ha~ed. a~ required hy l'a,!tC,P, 1019(a),
WIIEREFURE. Dcfendant j",ulllc Faulkner requcsts that lhe I'laintilTs Complaint be
dismisscd. or inlhe alternativc. thatl'lainliff he requircd to attach the writing~ on which and out of
which the causc of action is Il<L,ed,
XIII. Motion to Strike
Scandalous and Impertinent Matter
81. Pamgmphs I through 80 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth,
82, The following allegations of the Complaint should be slrieken as scandalous and
impertinent matter in that the allegations arc irrclevant and inappropriate:
Paragraph 13: Plaintiff believes and has knowledge that Defendant's client in the lawsuits
have not paid tor their worthlesslbad check and never intend to pay for their worthlesslbad
checks, Plaintiff believes that Defendant files suit and threatens legal action for the purpose
of shielding her clients from criminal and eivilliability,
Paragraph 15: In the lawsuits. several of Defendant's clients arc "multiple offenders"
meaning they wrote more than one worthlesslbad check and never paid for same,
Paragraph 16: Plaintiff believes that several of Defendant's clients are in bankruptcy and
Plaintiff has never received notice from the Bankruptcy Court that any settlement monies
were reported to the tmstee,
Paragraph 23: As of the date of this Complaint, none of Defendant's clients in the lawsuits
have paid for their worthlesslbad check,
Paragraph 24: As of the date of this Complaint, none of Defendant's clients in the lawsuits
have returned the merchandise to the stores,
Paragraph 27: Under Connecticut law. failure to pay a dishonored check or draft is prima
facie evidence of intent to defraud,
Paragraph 29: Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check may
be a criminal under Connecticut law,
12
j
1
1
I
j
I
~
f i..
I . . .
, '
5, Plaintiff. Chad Sciders is an individual residin!! in Cumherland County, Pennsylvania,
(" Plaintiff is employed as president of a husiness Ihal is involved in collectiolls, primarily
collecting personal checks that were dishonored hy the individual check-writers' Iinancial
institutions,
7) Defendant Joanne Faulkner is an allorney who is located at 123 Avon Streel. New lIaven,
Connccticut.
General A/lef!ul;ons
8) Defendant filed lawsuits against Seiders individually. despite knowledge that Seiders is
part of a corporate entity and the corporate entily is both insured and has been financially
able to settle iawsuits with Defendant in the past.
9) In the lawsuits referenced in Paragraph 8 above ("lawsuits"), all of Defendant's clients
wrote bad checks to clients of CRA,
10) In the lawsuits. Defendant alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
u,s,c. 91692 ~" ("FDCPA") which provides for statutory damages of lip to
$1,000,00 plus attorney fees,
I 1) In the lawsuits. Defendant brought suit against Plaintiff. with no factual basis to pierce
the corporate form,
12) Plaintiff did not commit any tortious act that would make him individually liabie,
13) Plaintiff believes and has knowledge that Defendant's primary practice is illegally and
wrongfully making demands for payment or maliciously filing lawsuits against
individuals and entities that collect on worthless/bad checks.
14) Plaintiff believes and has knowledge that Defendant's clients in the lawsuits have not
paid for their worthless/bad cheek and never intend 10 pay lilr their 'I<lrthless/bad checb,
Plainliff believes that Defendanlliles suit and threalens legal aclion Itlr the purpose of
shielding her clients from criminal ,1l1d eivilliahilily,
IS) I lnder Connecticut law, an individual \\ ho writes a had check is liahle I'm civil pcnalties
and in somc instances. criminal penalties,
16) In the lawsuits. several of Defendanl's clienls arc "multiple offenders"mcaning they
wrote more than one worthless/bad chcek and never paid !tlr or relumed the merchandise,
17) Plaintiff believes that several of Dc1'endant's clients arc in hankruptcy and Plaintiff has
never received nolice from the Bankruptcy Court that any selllemenl monics were
reported to the trustee,
18) Plaintiff believes and has knowledge that Defendant's practices and procedures arc
unethical and possibly illegal and have been perpetrawd on numerous individuals and
entities throughout the United States,
19) Even if the retumed check fee was not pennilled in Connecticut (said undetennined fee
was made a detennined amount of $20,00 in the beginning of this year) the statutory
damages are up to $1,000,00, much more than Defendant requests in a selllement.
20) The tactics referenced in Paragraphs 18 arc part of Defendant's scheme to defraud and to
seek monies from Plaintiff through unconscionable an illegal means,
21) Plaintiff believes that an individual who knowingly writes a worthlesslbad check is
perpetrating a fraud and as such, the FDCPA does not apply,
22) Plaintiff did not personally allempt to collect from Defendant's clients,
23) Defendant filed malicious legal actions against Plaintiff in an allempt to extort monies
from Plaintiff, to cause interference with Plaintiffs business and to cause injury and
damage toPlaintilrs reputation by willi'ully and maliciously publishing dcl,ullatory
statemenlS,
24) As of the date of this Complaint. none of Dei'endanl's clients in Ihe lawsuits have paid for
their worthless/bad chcck,
25) As of the datc of this Complainl. none of Defcndant's clients in Ihe lawsuits havc
retumed the merchandise to the stores,
Count .f - Frm:d
25) Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 Ihrough 24 as if fully set forth hcrein,
26) Defendant misrepresented that the allegations and demands for money made by Plaintiffs
employer. eRA. were valid legal claims,
27) Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check is a lortious
activity pursuant to Connecticut law,
28) Under Connecticut law, failure to pay a dishonored check or draft is prima facie evidence
of intent to defraud,
29) Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check may be a criminal
under Connecticut law,
30) Defendant knew that defending a lawsuit in Connecticut would be both costly and time
consuming to Plaintiff, regardless of the results,
31) Defendant made these misrepresentations with the intent of inducing Plaintiff into settling
malicious legal actions,
32) Plaintiff justifiably relied on these misrepresentations which did mislead and deceive
Plaintiff to mail money to Defendant.
33) Plaintiff had no opportunity to negotiation the numerous settlement agreement for alleged
F1)( 'I' A violations,
34) 'I his failure to allow meall;ngfulnegotiation for a settlel11enl agrc'ement further
,kl11onstrales Ilefendanl's desire 10 <:ontinue hc'r pra<:ti<:e of dd'rauding Plainlifr.
35) Ilefendant had Ill> la<:lual Ita:;;:; 10 indude Plaintilfin :Il1Y of her lawsuits,
36) As a result ofllefendantmisrepresentations, Plainliffhas sustained damages whi<:h has
yet 10 he as<:ertained
Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgmenl against Defendant t,n a<:tual damages, plus
appropriate interest. and punitive damages in Ihe amount of $25.000,00
COllnlll - Ur"k';1 EMirhmen!
37) Plaintiffherehy incorporales Puragraphs I through 36 as iffully set forth herein,
38) Defendant acquired value in the fonn of cash payments fonn Plaintiff and was unjustly
enriehcd,
39) Defendant acquircd the value from Plaintiff through her conlinuous practice of filing
malicious lawsuits, despite Ihe tortious activity of her elienls,
Whereiore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for actual damages, plus
appropriate interest, and punitive damages in the amount of$25,OOO,OO.
Count lU - i!),ef/ilma(.i~n
40) Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 39 as iffully set forth herein,
41) Defendant made contact with attorneys throughout the United States for the purpose of
infonning said attorneys of her scheme to defraud Plaintiff,
42) Defendant admitted to contact with an attorney from Philadelphia, John Shniper
regarding Plaintiff:
43) Defendant admitted to contact with two attorneys from Arizona, Bybee & Shaw,
regarding Plaintiff,
44) Defendant admilled to cllntacl with Ihe law linllllf I'dclman &. ('omhs in Illinois,
regarding Plaintiff.
45) Defendant discussed Seiders to other plaintitrs allornc~s \lho thcnmade similar deman,b
or filed similar lawsuils against Seiders using similar t,,,;tks,
46) Dcfcndant causcd to bc pulllished defamatory slalemenls such as:
a) that, PlaintilThas caused harm or damage to Dc!'endant's clients hy sending one to
three benign lellers requesting payment of bad check's wrillen hy said clients;
b) that. Plainliffhas allempled to collect monies from Dcfcndanl's clients in an
allemptto deccive said c1ienls when in fact. these amount were legally owed to
Plaintifrs clicnts;
c) that, Plaintiff has violatcd ccrtain /ail'S and statues govcrning Ihe collection of
worthless/bad checks,
47)
Such statemcnts made by Defcndant werc false and made with Ihe intent to injure
Plaintifrs business reputation or for thc purposc of oppressing Plaintiff into paying
monies for acts that Plaintiff did not participate in or commit.
48) Defendant's aCls of dcfamation werc committed knowingly. willfully. wrongfully and
maliciously and without lcgal justification or excusc,
49) As a result of Defendant's publication of such defamatory statements and contacts with
other attorneys, Plaintiff has been injured in its good namc, business intcrest and
reputation in the business community in an amount yet to bc ascertained,
Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for actual damages, plus
appropriate intercst, and punitive damages in thc amount of $25.000,00
I~
I,
Ii
I
,
!
CHAD SEIDERS,
IN TilE ('OURT OF ('OMMON PLEAS
CUMBERl.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plainli ff
CIVIL ACTION NO, '18.62%
v,
JOANNE FAULKNER.
Defendant
PRELIMINARY OB,IECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. Jurisdiction
1. Defendant Joanne Faulkner is an attorney. with her office located at 123 Avon
Street, New Haven, Connecticut.
2, Defendant Joanne Faulkner practices law in. and carries out her business in, the State
of Connecticut and has been doing so since 1967,
3, Defendant Joanne Faulkner has no place of busincss in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylva!ua,
4. Defendant Joanne Faulkner does not conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,
5, Defendant Joanne Faulkner does not own any property in Pennsylvania,
6, The lawsuits referenced at Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, which are the
alleged basis of the claims made in Plaintiffs Amcnded Complaint, arose out of activities carried on
by Plaintiff Chad Seiders in the State of Connecticut, involving citizens of the State of Connecticut
and merchants located in the State ofConnccticut.
7, The lawsuits referenced at Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint were filed in the
United SlUtes District Court for the District of Connectieul.
8, With respect to the lawsuits set forth at Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint,
Defendant Joanne Faulkner has had no contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on which
to base personal jurisdiction over her in Pennsylvania,
9, With respect to any claim made in Plaintifi's Amended Complaint, Defendant
Joanne Faulkncr has had no contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on which to base
personal jurisdiction over her in Pennsylvania,
10, CountllI of the Amended Complaint makcs a claim of defamation and sets forth no
facts that support personal jurisdiction over Defendant for said claim,
II, Defendant Joanne Faulkner docs not have contacts with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, nor has Defendant Joanne Faulkner taken other actions which would justify
jurisdiction of the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over her, pursuant to 42 Pa,C,S,
95322,
12, With respect to the allegation set forth at Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs allegations are based upon communications preliminary to, in the institution of, or during
the course of and as part of a judicial proceeding, and as such, they are absolutely privileged,
Therefore, Defendant Joanne Faulkner does not have nor has she had sufficient contacts with the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which would justify jurisdiction of the courts of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over her.
13, Defendant Joanne Faulkner does not have nor has she had sufficient contacts with
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over her under
2
WIIEREFORE. Dcfcndant Joannc Faulkncr rcqucsts thaI this lIonorahle Court enter an
Order dirccting Plaintiff to filc a morc spccilic p\cading as to Count I of thc Amcndcd Complaint
within twenty (20) days of thc Court's Ordcr. with Count I of thc Amended Complaint to be
dismissed. with prejudice. if Plainti IT fails to fi Ie a more speci lie pleading.
IV. Demurrer to Count II orthe Amended Complaint
Unjust Enrichment
34. Paragraphs I through 33 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
35. At Count II of the Amended Complaint, PlaintiIT makes a claim based upon unjust
enrichment. The allegations of Count II of the Amended Complaint arc based upon the allegations
of Count I ofthe Amended Complaint and the claims made therein.
36. In that Counll of the Amended Complaint docs not state a cause of action against
the PlaintiIT, Count II of the Amended Complaint is also delicient, and must be dismissed with
prejudice.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joanne Faulkner requests that judgment be entered in her favor
and against Plaintiff on Count II of the Plaintifrs Amended Complaint and that Count II of
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
V. Motion for a More Specific Pleading
With Respect to Count II orthe Amended Complaint
Unjust Enrichment
37. Paragraphs llhrough 36 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
38. PlaintiIT claims that Defendant Joanne Faulkner was unjustly enriched as a result of
the matters set forth in the Amended Complaint.
6
47. Plaintiffs allegations of fraud arc based on communications alleged to have becn
made by counscl preliminary 10 a propos cd judicial procccding. in thc institulion of or during thc
course of and as part of a judicial procccding in which Plall11iff participatcd ~LS counscl and which
stalcments had somc rclation to thc proceeding. which statcmcnts arc absolutcly privilegcd and
therefore cannot be the basis of a dcfam~ltion claim.
48. Plaintiff has failcd to set forth adequatcly the damagcs suffered by Plaintiff.
particularly any special damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joanne Faulkncr requests that judgment be entered in her favor
and against Plaintiff on Count III of lhe Plaintifrs Amended Complaint and that Count III of
Plaintiffs Amcnded Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
VII. Motion For a More Specific Pleading With
Respect to Count III of the Amended Complaint
Defamation
49. Paragraphs I through 48 arc incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
50. In Count III of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes a claim against Defendant
Joanne Faulkner based upon allegations of defamation.
5'1. Plaintiff fails to set forth with sufficient specificity the defamatory statements and to
sufficiently identify what was alleged to have been said, stated or published by Defendant.
52. Plaintifl's Complaint fails to state whether all alleged defamatory statements are
contained therein, in that Paragraph 46 states "the Defendant caused to be published defamatory
statements such as:"
53. Plaintiff must set forth all alleged defamatory statements in the Amended Complaint
and the phrase "such as" must be stricken from the Amended Complaint, in that it may permit an
8
"pcn.cndcd opportunity 10 amcnd thc Amcndcd Complaint to mfd additional allegcd defamatory
slatcmcnts inthc futurc,
5.1. PlainlifT fJils 10 sct f(1I1h wilh sufficicnt spccilicily lhc idcntily of any pcrson to
whom said alleged defamatory slatements were made.
55. Plaintiff fails to set forth how "lid defamatory slatements were made, that is.
whether they were in wriling, made orally or othcrwise staled.
56. Plaintiff has failed to sct forth adcquately the damages suffered by Plaintiff,
particularly any special damages.
57. Defendant Joanne Faulkner cannot prepare an adequate Answer to the Amended
Complaint, nor a defense to this matter, without a more specilic pleading to the Defamation claim
and a more specilic pleading should be Ordered.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joanne Faulkner requests this Honorable Court enter an Order
striking "such as" from Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, directing Plaintiff to file a more
specific pleading as to Count III of the Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Court's
Order, with Count III of the Amended Complaint to be dismissed, with prejudice, ifPlaintifffails to
file a more specific pleading.
VIII. Demurrer to Count IV of the Amended Complaint
Unfair Business Practices
58. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
59. In Count IV of the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff sets forth a claim under Ihe Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. ~20l-1.
9
\
60. The Unfair Trade PrOlctices ami Consull1cr Protection Law provides for a private
cause of action only for a pcrson "who purchasc, or \cascs goods or ,ervice, primarily for pcrsonal.
family or household purposcs...... 73 I'.S. ~2()1.'),2.
61. The Amended Complainl does not make a claim which arises out of the purchase or
Icasc of goods or services by Plainliff or out of the purchase or leasc of goods or serviccs primarily
for personal, family or houschold purposes.
62. Thc Amendcd Complaint docs not sct forth any conduct thai falls within thc Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
63. Count IV of thc Amcndcd Complaint rclies on thc allegations of Count I of the
Amendcd Complaint and if Count I of the Amcnded Complaint is dismissed, thcn Count IV must
also be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Joannc Faulkncr rcqucsts that judgmcnt be cntcred in her favor
and against Plaintiff on Count IV of the Plaintifl's Amendcd Complaint and that Count IV of
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint bc dismissed with prcjudicc.
IX. Demurrer to Request ror Injunction
64. Paragraphs I Ihrough 63 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
65. Counts IV of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint rcquests money damages and, in
addition, requests that Defendant Joanne Faulkner be cnjoined from various activities.
66. The Amended Complaint does not sct forth adequate facts to establish any right to
injunctive relief.
67. The Amended Complaint does not set forth any allegations that entitle Plaintiff to
injunctive relief.
10
75. Plaintiff has failed to attach to his Amended Complaint a copy of thc writings on
which his causc of action is hascd, as requircd by l'a.R.C.P. IOII)(a).
WHEREFORE, Defcndant Joannc Faulkncr rcquests that thc Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint bc dismissed, or in thc altemative, that Plaintiff bc requircd to attach thc writings on
which and out of which thc causc of action is bascd.
XII. Motion to Strike
Scandalous and Impertinent Matter
76. Paragraphs I through 75 are incorporated herein as if fully sct forth.
77. The following allegations of thc Amended Complaint should be stricken as
scandalous and impcrtincnt matter in that the allcgations arc irrclevant and inappropriate:
Paragraph 14: Plainliff belicves and has knowledgc that Defendant's clients in the lawsuits
have not paid for their worthless/bad chcck and never intend to pay for their worthlesslbad
checks. Plaintiff believes that Defendant files suit and thrcatens legal action for the purpose
of shielding her clients from criminal and civil liability.
Paragraph 16: In the lawsuits, several of Dcfendant's clients are "multiple offenders"
meaning they wrote more Ihan one worthlesslbad check and never paid for same.
Paragraph 17: Plaintiff believes that several of Defendant's clients are in bankruptcy and
Plaintiff has never received notice from thc Bankruptcy Court that any settlement monies
were reported to Ihe trustee.
Paragraph 24: As of the date of this Complaint, none of Defendant's clients in Ihe lawsuits
have paid for their worthlesslbad check.
Paragraph 25: As of the date of this Complaint, none of Defendant's clients in Ihe lawsuits
have retumed the merchandise to the stores.
Paragraph 28: Under Connecticut law, failure to pay a dishonored check or draft is prima
facie evidence of intent to defraud.
Paragraph 29: Defendant knew or should have known that writing a worthless check may
be a criminal under Connecticut law.
12
C!lAD SEIDERS. an individual
Plaintifr.
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PI.I:^S
ClIMIlI:J{I.AND COUNTY,
PI:NNSYI.V ANI^
v.
('Ivil Action No,<JH-(,~<J6
JOANNE FAUI.KNER,
Defcndant.
Pl.AINTIFF'S tJ,NSj'f'ER TO
DEFENDANT'S PREUMfNAif?Y OBJECTIONS
And Now Comes, Chad Seidcrs. (hcreinalicr "Scidcrs"), by and through his attomcy.
Dcanna L. Smith, Esquirc. and offcrs the following avermcnts in support of his Answcrs to
Dcfendant's Preliminary Objcctions:
.7. .fllTh-diction
I) Admittcd.
2) Admitted in part, dcnied in part. It is admittcd that dcfendant is liccnsed to practice law
in Connecticut. it is denied that dcfendant only conducts busincss in thc statc of
Connecticut.
3) After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowlcdgc or information sufficient to
form a belicfas to the truth of this Paragraph ofthc Prcliminary Objcctions. To the
extent a rcsponsc is required. it is hereby dcnicd and strict proof is dcmandcd at time of
trial.
4) Denied. Defendant regularly conducts busincss in Pennsylvania through her Ictters,
telephone contacts and facsimilc transmissions into thc Commonwcalth. By way of
furthcr rcsponsc, Dcfcndant's busincss with Pcnnsylvania was conductcd ovcr a pcriod of
at Icast 15 ycars.
S) ^,icr rl'as,lIlabk in\'cstlgatll''', !,;""",~! ,'. ,,,:h,,".', ,,,,,,,,,'dgl' ,,, "lI"r"''''I'''. ,ulf,cll'I" '"
fOrltl a hclll:fas to the truth 0111:::-- ;]::~_:1'3a;)h ;It"tr:l' hl'~!:T:lt1ary OhJections 1'0 the
l.'xtcnt II respoJlse is required, It 1:-. hl'ft'hy lknll'd and ~;lrllt pru(lfis dt~l1I;lIHkd at time oj
trial
6) ^dmiltcd In part. dcmeu in part. it IS only adl1l1ltcd that citi/cns of titc statc of
COrHll'cticut and merchants located 1:: tht' sta:l' of t'tmnccticut urc partially involved.
though mcrchants arc not part of this ^ction. it is DEN!!:!) that all allcgations in thc
Complaint arose from actlvitlcs which wcrc carried on solely In the statc ofConnccticut.
By way of further response. Dck:-llbnt's pr<lcticl~ inc1..H.1es suing or threatening to sue
collection agencies and collection a~:o:n~ys iDeated within this Common\vcaith and
dcfendant derived considcrable financial gain through this practicc. Initial discovery
demonstrated that defcndant contacted Plaintiff as well as numcrous other individuals and
companies within this Commonwealth tcthreaten or lile her frivolous lawsuits for
pecuniary gain with thc intcnt to initiate a scrics of such acts, (41 Pa.C.S. 95322 (a)(I)(i)
and (ii); and/or to commit a tort (42 Pa.C.S. 95322(3)); and/or causing tortious injury in
this Commonwealth by an act or omission outsidc this Commonwcalth. 41 Pa.C.S.
95322(a)(4).
7) Admitted.
8) Denied. Defendant made numcrous contacts with rcspect to the lawsuits filed against
Plaintiff. Defendant also conduct hcr busincss with other individuals and companies
located within thc Commonwealth. sufticicnt to mcet thc minimum contacts standard of
both the Unitcd States Constitution and thc Pennsylvania Jurisdiction Statute. at 42
Pa.C.S. g5322 et seq.
9) "erlled :kJl~[l'ia:lt nli\lle 1I.!llCOi...\co::I,\\'t\ 's,ttl t\"'i"\ ~ i(lll.\' Ll...."'dii', ';i:'d ,l1'.\1;';"
Plaintiff. Defendant also conduct hl'r hUSlr1l";" ,"llh ul',t': :mh..:dl;;lh ;I:1d ((lrnlu~nr
located \...'ithin tile ('{)lIHIlOn\Vl~alth, ~;\lI!iCl','nt io JI1l"~'! t:.(. ::,:Jli;:Hlfl; "()' :,~ ~'. ,,\.t:llldr<,l I:!
riiit;; :r::.: t!n:tcd ~!;1!'':~: (\)p:--!!1u1\l11l "wi tilt' i\';I11',\i\;.:..t _;dll',dlt:llOIl >;id:llll', (1"1.
Pa.C.S. *5322 et sey Copit.:s orleans. tciephom: lr1\'uJlT', illllJ dcli.:ncLmt's tiCpO~;I::Url
will he providcd.
10) llcnicd, Thc Amc:ndcd Complaint incorporatc:s ail paragraphs By Wa\ o!' LJrthc:r
responsc. discovery was conducted and said discovery ;c\.'ealetJ telephonl.: contacts as well
as facsimile contacts hy defcndant into the ('omIl1Dllwcalth. Plaintlll'al:i:J t:a~; kttcr\
writtcn hy defcndant to thc Commonwcalth and spccitically. to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also
bclicvcs and thcrcforc avcrs, bascd on defcndant's rcp,cscntations. that shc contactcd
othcr individuals and companics within thc C01l1mollwc:alth via tcicpllllnc and iettcr.
Copies ofthc lettcrs, tclephone invoiccs and dcposition will he providcd at timc of
briefing or Plaintiff will again, with this Honorablc Court's pcrmission, amcnd his
Complaint to rcl1cct thc information rcvcaled through discovcry.
11) Dcnicd. By way of furthcr rcsponsc, initial discovcry was conductcd and said discovcry
revealed telephonc contacts as well as facsimile contacts by defcndant into thc
Commonwealth. Defendant contacted Plaintiffas wcll as othcr individuals and
companics within thc Commonwcalth via telephone and lcttcrs to thrcatcn or file hcr
frivolous lawsuits for pccuniary gain with thc intcnt to initiatc a scrics of such acts, (41
Pa.C.S. 95322 (a)( 1 )(i) and (ii); and/or to commit a tort (42 Pa.C.S. 95322(3)); and/or
causing tortious injury in this Commonwcalth by an act or omission outsidc this
Commonwealth. 41 l'a.C.S. 95322(a)(4). Copics ofavailablc lettcrs, telcphonc invoices
and ddcl:d;lll:'\ (!lTiO\ltHHl will tH' PIO\ lt1ed
1:') Ilcl\lcd I'I,ur;tilrlS no! ddcndan!', client ,,,,d ,>I,',,,l;nl" arc jlublic rl'eo,d, her:l... r;o
pr: \ i kill' ;1 ~~;,: :;'.'>
I
~ '
J 3) Ikllll.'d By way ot ftirthn ~l~~;fi(lll~;e, ;rli~]ai dl~;C()\l'ry \\as cOllducted and said dlSCOH'fY
revcaled tL'iephone contacts as well as I;lcsimilc contacts by deli:ndant into the
, ,
! j
Commonwealth. Defendant contacteo Flaintiff as well as other indivH..it~ids aDd
t
I
!
cnmpallll':S withlll tbe Comn;UIl\",Ci:lth \'1<.1 telephone and letters to threaten or file her
frivolous lawsuits Ill[ pecunia!)' gain with thc intcnt to initiatc a seric~; of such acts. (41
Pa.C.S. ~5322 (a)(I)(i) and (ii): and/or to commit a tort (42 Pa.C.S. ~5322(3)): and/or
causing tOriious injury in this Commonwcalth by an act ur omission outsidc this
Commoowcalth. 41 Pa.C.S. ~532!.(a)(4), Copics of availablc lettcrs, tclcphonc invoices
and dcli:ndant's dcposition will be provided.
]4)
Denied. Through the coursc of at least] 5 years. defendant has been conducting her
course of business by sending letters and making telephone calls and tacsimi\cs into thc
Commonwealth. By way of furthcr response, in defendant's deposition, defendant was
careful to point out that in a $10,000,00 settlement, only $5,000.00 camc Irom
Pennsylvania. Copy of said deposition will be provided.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff respectfully rcqucsts that this Honorable Court permit this
l
~
Action to go forward and rule that jurisdiction is proper within this Commonwcalth or pcrmit
Plaintiff to amcnd his Complaint to rcveal the information obtained through discovery that was
, ,
~ ;
.. I
. ;
conducted AFTER the filing of the Amended Complaint.
/IIi. if)efl'lI4frer to Cmmt :7 ort},e C{)m~!(JJ,;"'! /F'~(Jjldd
is) Paragraphs I through 14 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
: ~;
l()) t\dmittl~d 1ll part. denied ili j',(!1 d" ,dn:dll ,<.. ,t' '<'Y:~" oftl1\' a!lq',;t(Hin'> ;:; 1::c
..\:llt'fHkd ( ilIllP:;JjI:: :l:t",\' ~,.'
, ; \ '. \ ' "" :;.. II ~
: ( : I ~: ,in ~, il ; '. !) i ,>; :i' ,j ::..:! "
allq',ill:lHl" a:ll~.C lrul1l ',;::(: .~ ,\',., ~',
II) I killed i he lawsuits ;Hl' 1;\';: \';l:~': ,\ t On:H'C!1C~:l ]'.j(jrt~ (See cast' citeD :n ddt~mian!'s
tkposlt\lln. will be pro\'ldrd). fl'lll<,(':: :0 part;lkr;q (~._':i.'Iit.:ai1t'~, cas!'.... ,~;;c:o thl' t~:llJsua:
r;;::u:t: t~~' r.c: :,.,: ::i':n'r;.'_':' ,\,ti ','.:- :jr~::!:, i 'p'.:':: ::;r.~~"<.:;r l>.:tlt (':llkc::~lil Practices
^ct, I) lJ .:';,C. ~ J ()92 et set;, (J' D~. F /.. .'). dekntIlWt' s c j lcnts are only cn:illt.:J to "up to
$1.000.00" howevcr. dcfendant WIll not scttle for IC"; tha!l $1 O.OO:U:O/chc;;t in Plaintiirs
cases, Dcfcnount intention;lJly Cll'at~:~; ;:.:gal rct.:~, ll'; ;)rUl.:f to force Plumtit;' !_, settle for
sdhstantlaiiy lar!;e sums Orr~H;liey. ~;dcndant. in hcr actions, flied ncariy identical
complaints and ncarly idcnticaJ discovery yct rcquircd Icga! fccs f(lr thc identical
documcnts. With thc advcnt of word proccssing. it cannot rcquirc $:i.OOO,OO, plus. in
legal fees w dru.t~ the sume Complaint. over and over and over. Plaintiff intends to
compel copics ofDcfcndant's lec agrcemcnts and rccords showing thc numhcr of hours
billcd on cach of casc.
18) This is a conclusion of law to which no rcsponsc is requircd. To thc cxtcnt a rcsponsc is
required, it is hcrcby dcnicd and strict proof is rcquircd at timc of trial.
19) Dcnicd. Plaintiff is not dcfcndant's clicnt and plcadings arc public rccord. hencc, no
privilege applies.
20) This is a conclusion of law to which no rcsponse is rcquircd. To the cxtcnt a rcsponse is
rcquircd, it is hcrcby dcnicd and strict proof is rcquircd at timc of trial.
21) Dcnicd. Dcfcndant has rcpcatcdly made misreprcscntations or omissions in hcr course of
conduct to defraud Plaintiff of moncy and for her pcrsonal financial gain. Thc clemcnts of
I: ,ll:d ,.:,' l ,',',~: ':. ;", ,l'<~d
V,'lll'.RI'H)J{ ~'.. Pi;unll(:' rt'Spc(lIIJi!\ "".1,;,",1\ :::::, : 1 r:.I!d': l: "',:.;:t ';',;.-. : ;~-:t..':~I!,~:.: .
AfJs\\cr the 1\Illl'fldrd ('omplallll. :lllht' ;l!ll'rl:;tll\-:, !o ;,'..:rj~ .. I .ait1:dl ~() ;w:!.:. ;~:)i\';,d 1;;,.
('!~~';;I,:.:::l i1t'l;lIISl' Initial dISl:Oq'i! \',,1',"
t""';. III : ii"" ::-;1' lillh' !\n;ri,'l~'l: (':l!lJn!.t,l.!
,lL, :icr,.'CU'H':1i.j:'" j)I[:1C ;"/W1U::SffCX TO CO {If,,}
~2) l;cllled, The ekments of Fra\ld "''' clearly pl"ad s\llf""""t III plac" dckndaIlt llIl fl'.>tl.:"
as TO her I~~:~lrcf)n:sentations ami o:ll;~~siu!ls enablIng her to rt.:spulld therctu
2_1) nelli<.:d. THe elements of i:ii.1uti an: cicariy riead SUtiiCIL:llt to place dck:H.i;:nl on rllltlCC
as to her misrcprcscntations and omissions cnabling hcr to respond thereto.
24) Denied. The elcmcnts of Fraud arc c!carly picad sunicientto placc dcfc'ldant on !:otic"
as to her misrepresentations anti omJ~;s;on~, :..:nabJ;ng her:o respond thereto
25) Admittcd in part. dcnit:d in part. It IS admittcd that thc certain sums are not allcged, It is
denied that Plaintiff did not plead damages. Plaintiff attempt to estimate damagl's and
factor in punitive damages.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff respectfully requests this iionorable Court Order Defendant to
Answer the Amended Complaint. in the alternative, to pcrmit plaintiff to again amend his
Complaint because initial discovery was completed aftcr the filing of the Amended Complaint.
Hi. MfO'fWN /F'O!f? Ai MOiRE SJPEGJnC JPUEA/IJi,VNG WJI'j{'JHJ /RESPEC7f' 7W COUNT I
26) Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporates as if fully set forth herein.
27) Denied. The Amended Complaint sets for a claim for fraud.
,IX' ; kl1tcd : Ill' t'jt'l!\t'Ii:" :d' !'r.~;ld att' l:ic,niy pll';\I1 '-,~lll~("It:llt !l~ pidtT t:l'~' '.t~,
d'o :\~ fir: j '.'l";,~"\~'/.i.11 \.::. ,lnd O;lilSSlon:; t'llahllJjl', Ill'r 10 rcsflPnd till'r('~\)
1'1;
:)n:llli
':l' " '::':\"1~" P: : f':'.id d!T ckilriy pit-ad ~dd.lic\l':!lt to place (kk~ld.I!;! '11\ !llllit~'
i1S 10 11l'f 'lli',r"flft'~,t'IlI.l!i(\!l'; ;uld \Hl;I~;';:or::, Cili!bIHI!'. ::\';- to [l'.';jH'I[]d ~1:l'~',.:1
H)) I killed I hL' t.:1l':l1eflls of l'raud art: clL'arly plead SUftiCIL"f1t to place ddi~:;:J;:;,~ on r:OlllT
as to ht:r illl~;rL"prcst'IlLil]():lS and omissiuns e:lllbling her to responu trH':'"ctu
",
",
I knit'd Pl;!ln!i rr ('stlll1at~'d J;l.!lJ:\gl'~; c.r:t! gi ','[::1 thi:: puniti\'l~ dama!I,l'S <Ill' p~' 'pn ~'l)J
tortiolls "cis. plaintiff bclicvcs and tbcrclllrc avcrs that thc amount of damagcs Ill[ Ihc
Amended Complaint L".,\I:"''''U the HI.!10Un! for il.Tbj!ra!ion. lll>\vcver. are currently Ie,,,::) Iha!l
$75.000.00
32 Admittcd in [i<.irt. dCilled iil purt. It is admitted that the l:crtain surns are n:Jt ailcged, It lS
denied that Plaintiff did not plcad damagcs. Plaintiff attcmpt to cstimate damagcs and
tilctor in punitive damages.
33. Denicd,
WHEREFORE, PlaintdT respcctfully requests this Honorable Court Ordcr Dcfendantto
Answer thc Amendcd Complaint. in thc alternative. to permit plaintiff to again amcnd his
Complaint becausc initial discovcry was complctcd aftcr the filing of the Amend cd Complaint.
TV Del/'tJ'l.ttJ"eil' fo Count JIll. /Uniust Enrichment
34) Paragraphs I through 33 arc incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
34) Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffmakcs a claim for unjust
cnrichmcnt. It is denied that the allegations in Count fI rely solcly on Count I of the
Amended Complaint.
1',\ ','\\'
';':'\ ::\,:,jt',:
;', ~'''~t-;,r' ': ~lt li::~(' (;~ ~; "
.,
;t''';h)]~'''~', !!: " ;l:t'li!!l)::d~~ l1hjl'r!ll)i, ;', :lil:,:,'T"ll.l;
\l,: ;:~! :);,l,n:,'~-rl":,;H'(';:lj;," !'.'(t.,I",:-,t):. !i", ,'~d'l,t' ',L,T' /'.'1'
.\':....
1,;,,;1 ;i:. ,:: :',~, .:!:l';c:.:.l:' .", ('.J i,V"';,i' ;,id:::: ~l : ) ,~(,~in ,I:; t",'; !J:',
( ll:np.::':lt '~W,' ,.,"", ,,"~: C:,"';wery \\;'.:; ~:\l:!l;i:t::',.'d ;_~ne~ ~r.C !:iing 0:' :hc /.:::r;:dl'd ('C::;;ddi:i'.
~', /d'<}Jili!'lJt<_r.{lj}fu!.f_5,;';d~:iJ;LEt~GJlh?i:.)"dlb _l:~':Jk'/Cl..t{L V!.l.iH~'1 :'~~'1l/1f,')'i;:';I:n/
:\7) :;'''''grap;'' ; Ihrnu~,h )(, arc hcrchy incorpor"ted as if fully set I'lrth clerc;n
JR) ^urniUeu.
)9) Admitted In part. den;cd in part, It is adJ11lttcd that Plaintiff's Compiaint docs not "llei'.e
spccif;c damagcs. It is denicd that Fla;ntifl does r.ot allegc dam"ges Plaintl IT estimated
t.iamage~: Sl!~:':l~ S'.mll: SUr.iS an.: expected W be paid shortly.
40) Denied. The ailcg~tions in the Complaint relative to tr.~~ ~:ause of action arc sufficient to
put defendant on notice as to her conduct creating the unjust enrichment and enable her to
respond thereto.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff respectfully requcsls this Honorablc Court Order Dcfendant to
Answer the Amended Complaint. in the altcmative, to permit plaintiff to again amend his
Complaint because initial discovery was completed after the filing of thc Amended Complaint.
V]. /[JJQYIl.'iU'?f!1 ~{) C!)un1 JTi/J/. ][Je((E:i'J"JatUo!l11
41) Paragraphs I through 40 are hercby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
AmL'IHkd ('OmplaIl11 t'\l'ccd the altJoullt for arhilr;tllOll. hO\\t'\l'r, dll' rur:c'nth lev,ll:dll
>'h.(HHU)().
\Vi jI'lU':H )1<'1,_. Plall1:1ff rcsplTtfully I':qllt':-;l\ ti\j,; ! lllii(;r;\rdl' ('p::11 ();\;,'; kkll',.;a;t t(i
AIIS\\er lhe AIllCIllkd ('tllllpi;unL !r~ tilt' aiterll(ltl\l', to pCrJllll plllllltlll ttl ilg;Ufi il/lil'!l(: Ill';
{'OTllplilint bL'cause initial discovery \\'as completed after thc Ii ling of the Amcnded ('ornpLun:
l'lL.H('figllJVlJYiJ!.!LSpecifi(' Plel/t/ini:. Dr.fI!I!1UtU!!1
,1'1) Paragraphs I throuf',h .IH arc hcrcby incorporatcd as ir lull)' sct !i>rth hcrcin,
50) Admittcd
51) Dcnicd. Dcfcndant drancd thc complaints and is wcll awarc or thclr contcnt dcclarlng
thatPlaintiffviolatcd thc law.
52) Admittcd in part. dcnicd in part. It is udrnillcd that not <ill dcliunatory statcmc:lls arc
included in thc Complaint. It is denicd that thc Complaint docs not adcquatcly plead
defamation.
53) Dcnicd. Pl:1intilTbelicvcs and thcrcl"rc avcrs that rcccnt discovcry rcvcalcd contucts
madc b)' dercndant to other individuals rcgarding Plaintiff and his cmployer. By way of
furthcr rcsponsc, whcn thc casc gocs f'lnvard, furthcr discovcry will revcal defcndant's
cgrcgious conduct.
54) Denicd. The allcgations in the Complaint relativc to thc causc of action arc sufficient to
put defendant on noticc as to hcr defamatory conduct.
55) Denicd. The "complaints" in question are clearly "in writing" and in thc custody and
control of defcndant. By way of furthcr rcsponsc, Plaintiff bclicvcs and therefore avcrs
that oral statemcnts wcrc made by dcfcndant to individuals throughout the country.
56) Admillcd in part, dcnicd in part. It is admillcd that Plaintiffs Complaint docs not allcge
\peufiC d:u: :l~'t"'. L~l\\t'\'l..'r Pl.l1liti\: IL:;~;,:i'('" (,d::r;~" ",' .\,.\,.,
.:t: .1.'.:'.'
.'
t' ; \ : \ :: ~ i ,;; i .: ,\,","
,,,:11.....
"I'
. ',' ,\:':. ,,;:~':
, i ~ ; I ) .:, "
. : , 1 ;: ' 1 i l' ": )1, ~ '. "
;,\: \::., !1'.....\1'.,.! ,!:', ,.,~,;,t.,,, ',:.. ~1', (lOll CO
~/I
I kl1lt'~~
lilL' alkl'";lIIOll~ HI the \'\illq,~,i,:;~ :~:~~~~'..~ :" ,I'
I I" :,
, , . ~ :";,. 1\ . ; ,\ : '. I
j1ut ckkm\ant un f!tlticc as to her drfalii~l'tlty U;;-,l~l,(~
.x, TIU ',I")!Z;', "",,;~:lT ICSpC" 1 :..:, 'n.;!"'"'' '"",. . ','1!.." ii',,:-: " .;".'): .>.: ,'..., :;.:.,,,'. '.u
Alls\\cr the Amclldco ('o!l:piaint. III thc "lle'lIa\l\e. 10 pcrllli\ pl"llll:ff \\1 "1',"''1 ,,:;;t'I.d hI.'.
Cllmplall1t hccau"C mitial diseovcry was wmplctcd alicr thc liilllg of the AliICIIU'.'Cl C 'Olli;l,illnt
l j' I.,!. _ _~2 e m 1.[IJ:LjQ_:~J;jjl1Ll V....J)JiffAjL.i3J4.~j !lfJJ - i!--, (J_~': i r l: 1
5K) Paragraphs I lkou[.h 5'1 arc hcreby incorporated as if !'Jllv sct fut'!h kreill
,9) AJrnittct:.
60) Admitted. It is admittcd that 73P.S. ~2()1-9.2 ("Act") contained :he inlfl1{j,;c\Ory
sentcnce as cited in defcndant's paragraph.
61) Dcnied. PlaintilTis a consume". thc Ac! is hroad ""d iacludcs dd'enc:ant's conduct
62) Denicd. Plaintiff is a consumer. thc Act is broac: and includc~; dckndant's conduct,
63) Denied. Court IV of the Complaint relies on the General Allegatiorl.\ as outlined in thc
Complaint, which pertain. in who\c or in part. to the various Counts contained in the
Complaint. By way of further responsc. the reasoning in Paragraph 64 of defendant's
Preliminary Objections is misguided. It docs not stand to reason that if one Count relies
on a certain set of facts that another Count, relying in whole or in part on the same set of
facts. would not be actionahle.
. . . ! ~' : ,
, " ". ',".",
,..,., , ,. 'J' ,,,
. ", '..:"
,', ""
A::\\H" thl'l\nll':;dui ('(\nql;~I!::L:r: tiw ;l11l'~j,;~t'\(_' t'.l per::'"l;' ,..:.1, ,:!,;.:l ,:: :'."
('OlllpLlllll hl'C.LhC Initial disco\'er) w;\'; Cll:np:l'lnl ;lfh.'~' lh' rL ';i' (i:-tj1',' A:;W[,llt'd ( ,,\':lill.~d,T
;"'.~_,,~_fi' ::; '.:;..~/:. ~.:'; :":
..., ,.,...."
d, _ .'~ . _ _, ,
I:') ,',,,ag,al"'" : Iht',",g" /,,"" i,c,,,.: ,'" ,"r,"'.J:e:~ ," ,I Ill':;' \l'1 !e:,ti: l1elO;;:'
7:\) Admittcd In part. denied in parI. It IS admiltcd that some or thc allq;all"", .J""C !rOIl! the:
cnmplaillts filet.! hy lkklldanl. It is lll.:nieu th'-l.t all urthe a~k!.l.<:1iUtl:-, <J.l():;C j;'.Jlli t::l~
'_l::npl<t",,:s !1:\~;': ~:' ~l'fen~;:.;:: :~y 'S(:.\' ~)f :'L.:.:-thcr !'"esp.)~sl'. ueft.'j'::J,~nt\; ~:):;(i....cL uu!.c.,:ck
of tiling compllJ.!nts was aiso part ~)r tIle allegations, as wdl as hl'r cmHact with other
atton1eys. individuals and com panics rcgarding Plaintirr and his cmployer
74) Adrnittcu
75) Admittel!, By way of furtncr ,espG;;s::. thc complaints libl by dcfendar.t are in ilcr
custody ad control.
WHEREFORE. PJaintiffrespectfully requcsts this Honorable Court Oruer Defcndanllo
Answer thc Amended Complaint. in thc altcrnativc. to pcrmit plaintiff to again amend his
Complaint becausc initial discovery was complctcd aftcr the filing of the Amcnded Complaint.
xu. Molion 10 Strike SClJmd()J!olils and fl'lluerlinenl Maller
76) Paragraphs I through 75 are hereby incorporatcd as iffully set forth herein.
77) Dcnh:d. The Paragraphs of the Complaint referred to in defendant's Preliminary
Objections arc qnl~. The following summarize the fact/reason behind each Paragraph of
the Complaint refcrenced by defendant in her Preliminary Objections;
A) Defendant's clients did not pay for their bad checks nor did they return the
:1:1':1'\:\1:'".' f", "'1'
:1"
n f .: ;; ;\, '. \\'" .. .,. ~:,.
:,,::\ (
,;,
.'.
; ,\;:. ,",'. ',','lLl'l ill':
,.. ,"
, ' .. i ~ ' ' ' . .. .
I,";;>. :,"
'.....1:'. ,,,,'"
n:turlll'd :i.l' l~lrrd;;u:Ol~"", ;;':{:~I-" ..<h~" .,.".
';':>...0' '.,' ,.. d.' :;':a:,,~r;I~ an tht:
V2.Edity ai th~' ;'",,,,S,,-';: !-:hr '...'1:,) f:L:--,:
",
, ,
IkfenlLtn!\ C!.I'il!; "'.COll" ;;;\~:,. ":;~.. :';(", :,;. r, .f., :;'.\ ~;:I!1k~"'.I.-1 .':S '.'.'l:'r
n~iH.HtL'd hy :.k~l:f;d,l:I:, t~~~\...e\t.'~, "'.):!:~' ;.:: .~;jd;)~'.:'t.'s \-'.en: rt:Pllrtcd to P;i.unlirrs
employer. Plamtiff Jid not receive any i;()~:ce frum the trustee n:gJ.roing a
pntcntialciuim to the estate.
;\\
."/
Flaint~~':' {:~','::i ~'I'.-::'~';~: ::l~:t 1:" :.!.:' :;"~j\ ,~Ll;:! ~;";', "";"ii;}Y wr:t'.:~; i.~ Ol!.d dlcck he/she
was perpetrating and fraud an0. the FI)C j: A (1~) L j ,S.t'. ~ 1692 e( self.) docs not
apply. Scc . a casc whcrcin dcfcndan: wa,; thc plaintifrs att()mcy. Tuttle I'.
Eq'.Jifax Check Sftyice'~'1 }nr.. N:J, ~~ '.)(;,'f.tR, =~jstrict of Conn:.:ct!c-..:1 1(97)
(Emph,tsis <.Hideli.)
E) Connecticut has both civil and criminal statutes rcgarding bad chccks. and as an
attorncy. dcfcndant should bc awarc ofhcr state's statutcs rcgarding thc pcnaitics
lllr writing a bad check.
WHEREFORE. Plai'1tiff rcspectfu!ly rcqucsts that this I !onorable Court Ordcr defendant
to Answer the Amended Complaint and Ordcr that thc truc statemcnts. madc in thc Amcndcd
Complaint, remain as statcd.
XU.?, Fedele'! Preemplio"
78) Paragraphs 1 through TI are hercoy incorporatcd as if fully sct forth hcrcin.
... !:(
,.,.l _,
','
:,:"".
.<r!::'r:t~:,: :::
. '.
t\n....\......r tt:l' AllleJ:tlt:O ('O:lipli.llll1,!:j l~_(' ,l:!t::::,!L\~-,:- ;'t'~r;:! l,;.:,:lll!t 10 ;ti',:!:,~ ;!!';t'IH; :lI~l
('oIllplain! hecause initial disco\'ery wa:; C\~:::;d':l',,'(! ;:l!~'~ ::-.'- ~'l,::l!' \If th' ,'\;Ii'.'l,dvd ('orll;JLuTlt
{{ji_/_ /d{iiHiO, ;:~, ,,"~;" ",i~,n~'j', q' ;'>;J!!1{U:.ti'
~S) Paragraphs I through ~4 are ifJcorpor"tcd as if fully sct i("th hcrcin
~()) Admilled.
WI) This is a conclusion of law to which nCll responsc is rcquircd. To thc extcnl a responsc is
rC4uircd, it IS hca~oy dcn:eu. By W<.i)' ~)f further :t~sponSt~, Plaintiff merely suggested an
amount sufficient to punish defendant for her conduct. llowevcr, PlaintifT no longer
bclieves this amount would suftice, as such, PlaintifT would not objeet to this Honorable
Court striking the $25,000.00. and in :ts piac',. ier~ve thc amount opcn for this Honorable
Court to dctermine at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respcctfully requests th~t this Honorable Court pcrmit the
$25,000.00 in punitive damagcs to rcmain or in the altcrnativc. strike the $25,000.00 amount and
leave thc amount opcn to be dctclmined at time elf trial.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 19, 1999
!J~ ,;:: ~ . jt'U7t~C_
Deanna I .yn/~i~~Uirc
Att~Jrney for Plaintiff
:DII77414
76 Grccnmont Drive
Enola, PA 17025
(717) 732-3750
~
"
,
i
i
1.'.'
:;t\ r ,,'r\'/ CI \: ~
',1":'
, " ~ ".'" 1 (!: " ,I ."
~;e[v('d d t r lll' ,lIlt! ':orn'("
I,,,,
:\ I!~;....' \ . r
Derellddnt~:; Prf.:lirruflury UbJI'I't
~ , ,
lf~~,rl tit LOrrJC'Y :(U :)":":;'J J:,':; :',"
firsl CL1~;~; U.S. Mdil, pO~;~.'iqi: p:t.'pdld LCJ;
SLepht~n ;-j (;:',.'c'cIH:r' Jr., r:~;qUl!t.
TUCi\El~ t\!<::<;:~;H:':F:; ,~ :;',;!"I{TZ
1 "1] t.; () : -: r; !' . ~ .' : ; I : : ~ ~ ! ;:. t _' t
P. () Eo;.: ,Ij, (j
f-lurrisbu!'c1, l.l!~ l"/l()tj.-()~Jt~~
Dated: 7/19/99
4b4-
DEANNA r.YNN SMITH, ESQUIRE
lJL:1 Illl'j~~',
..' I
. ,
('il!\l) ~:Lll)\:IZS, al! l:dl\ l1\I,11
i ~~ ; J ~ ~, :' ( ): 'I,:
'\ '
if ,,".'
.: . ::1 : ~ ;. ;~. :\ >; ; j \
.,
Plail:~.:'l
.; ~...., y \/1\:<' I'
, ~ 'J /" . .
.i\)/\~~~;;. !..i\.i.lI.;<:~I',i
llclCIllJa!\t
(~iC); .(
/,r-";"; :~(~\;..' thiS
::a\ :)f
,lh
. ". .. ,:; t t : ,~ !,
'-x"~r.\
:)can!\a ; ,yr.;; ~;rl1lth be UiSl1l1ssd CO; ':lJ:.'bC, ,c.: :'ie,nt':! ,:; the abo\'c caplinm,u ,na:lcr. it is
further ORDERED that l'laintiffwill DC given at
daY~i from the da:e of this Order :tj
obtain :1C\V counsel
L~Y
Distribution:
Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esqu,re
TUCKEI{ I\I{ENSBERG & SWAI,n
111 NorLh Front Street
HarnsbClrg, pp\ l'I108-0889
Chad Seiders
4505 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA
Deanna Lynn Smi~~
76 GrccnrnGnt urive
Enola, P A 17025
,),
..."-,,'
NOV 2 4 19991
I'"
\'
.i
('1 lAD SI'.llll':J{~;, all 11,<11\'1<1,,,11
Pialll:i l~
iN"[ !U: ~'{)l U{ i ()j. \.'~/MM()N Jl JJI.'-;
CtfMBi'I'::.I\Nl) C()ll':"JT~',
ilJ':r~N~--; \:'; V /\Nl:\
i'. :<t; :;t (,.1 ';(
JO'\~~~~J' ;:At 1;.~I~Li\,
Defendant,
/'_:,F~, NC\V, ~!;;s
DRDH.
:X/^~;,,)j ~~
. j<jl;;;.;; .:; ncrt~i)y .::,i\:)j':;\~:'::; :!;a'
Dcanlla Lynn Smith bc dismisscd as coullsd Ill[ PiallllitT in the abovc captioncd maltcr. It is
further ORDERED thai PJaintiffwij) be given ~ t)__~_ days from the date of :his Order to
AM ~_,u.~ _ l-,;t;;..... ......,() -I.. - - J~ ;).() 1'795
obtain new counsel. ~ r--- ---- ,J ,... . _ (j ~'~) .
By:______ ____________J.
Distribution:
Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., EsquIre
TUCK~:E AEENSBEW, & :;WARTZ
111 No~t~l Froflt Street.
Harnsburg, PA 17108-088Y
Chad Seiders
4505 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA
ueanna Lynp. Srr:ith
"/6 Greenman! Drive
Eno!a. P A !7025
(lAJe>' rT>.~uL.
--vue<..UJ.' -
i.
i
i
I
1~/",/r;1 ,
.xl. )".
CIIAD SElDERS. an individual
Plaintil'C
IN TilE COl JRl OF COMMON I'I.I:AS
('lIMBUn.ANI) ('(HINlY.
I'I'NNSYI.VANIA
v,
('ilil ActIIlll NIl<JH-62%
)(MNNI.: FAIJLKNI'R,
Dcfcndant.
MOTION TO MAKE RULE ISSUED Octohcr 20, IlJlJlJ, ABSOI.lJJ'J:
AND DISMISS ('OUNSEL FROM CASE
AND NOW, comcs counselliIr Plaintin~ Dcanna Lynll Smith, and Jilcs this Motiollto
Makc the Rulc Absolutc thc Oetobcr 20, 1999, Ordcr, attachcd. and in support thcrcoC avcrs thc
following:
]. ^ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's counsel was lilcd by Plaintifrs counscl and a Rulc to
Show Cause was issucd by the Honorable Edward E. Guido.
2. The Rule was scrved on the 25'h Day of October, 1999.
3.
More than ten (10) days have passed since thc Rulc was issed.
,
4. No objcction was made to the Rulc.
WHEREFORE, counsel for Plaintiff respectfully rcqucsts that this Honorablc Court makc
the Rule Absolute and Dismiss counsel for Plaintiff from obligation in the above captioned
matter and allow Plaintiff thirty (30) or some reasonablc time, to obtain other counsel.
DATED: 11118/99
~~bmitted,
Deanna Lynn Smith
76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, P A 17025
717-732-3750
: ,
, I
>-
cr;
"".
,--.
"
IJ..J.'
tv-
Li: ~,
~~:
lJ.'
[l~ ~_'
:c::
<
>-
C._
'./
~--i -."[
....-, '
'-:.':f
~ ) ',::
:;, ~i~
::!~~2
......,
N
:;:-..
C:~
:..::
!5
~.,)
u,
'-)
c'
U'<
,
,
....
~~ .~
, : _J
, I "
, ,
" -'
I~l
", " I
'. L
.... ,.
(...
I C..... .
( C', '..)
.'
CHAD SEIDERS. an individual
Plainllff.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIvil Action No 9B-6296 CIvil
JOANNE FAULKNER.
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT OF JOANNE FAULKNER
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
ss:
COUNTY OF
Before me. the undersigned Notary Public, this day. personally appeared JOANNE
FAULKNER, of 123 Avon Street. New Haven. Connecticut 06511. to me known (or satisfactorily
proven) to be the within Affiant. who being duly sworn according to law. makes this Affidavit for
purposes of the Preliminary Objections filed with the Court in the above captioned matter.
deposes and says as follows:
1. My name is Joanne Faulkner. I am an adult individual. My address is 123 Avon
Street. New Haven. Connecticut 06511.
2. I am a citizen and resident of the State of Connecticut.
3. I am an attorney who has been licensed to practice law in the State of
Connecticut continuously for over 30 years.
4. I am not licensed to practice law in any state other than Connecticut.
5. I practice law in Connecticut. I do not practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
6. I pay taxes in Connecticut and vote in Connecticut.
7. I do not own real property outside of the State of Connecticut.
B. I have never resided in. voted in. practiced law in. or owned any property in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
9, I have never listed myself In any Pennsylvania phone directory, nor advertISed In
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
10 I have never maintained an office or had any employees In the Commonwealth of
Pemsylvania,
11, fn the course of my practice I have never had a case In which I represented a
client In a Pennsylvania state or federal court,
12. In the course of my practice I have never personally appeared in any legal
proceeding in Pennsylvania whether at a hearing, a trial or deposition.
13, To the best of my recollection I have never represented a Pennsylvania resident,
14. I have never had a bank account or mailing address in Pennsylvania.
15. My main area of practice is in Consumer Protection Law. including representing
consumers in cases arising out of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the similar Connecticut statute.
16. In my practice I represent Connecticut residents with respect to claims arising out
of activities that took place in Connecticut. with the cases brought in the State
Court and Federal Court in Connecticut.
17. I do not now. nor have I ever conducted or carried out business activities in
Pennsylvania.
18. On three occasions I have filed suit on behalf of clients against Chad Seiders
with respect to claims arising out of matters that took place in Connecticut with
the suits filed in the United States District Court for Connecticut. Each case
arose under the Federal Fair Debt Practices Act.
19, Chad Seiders was the defendant in each of the following cases filed on behalf of
my clients for claims arising from matters that took place in Connecticut:
Mary Musso v. Chad Seiders
- 2-
Donna Henry v Chad Selders, Denise Selders and
Capital Recovery Associates, Inc
Margaret Lorusso v Hap Selders, Chad Selders,
Denise Selders and Capital Recovery Associates, Inc
20 Each of the ahove cases Involv.!rl a violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in the nature of the charglOg debtors of and adding an Illegal fee to
the amount due for a dishonored check
21, The check collection fee Violated both the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and Connecticut law.
22. At all times relevant hereto Chad Seiders was the President of Capital Recovery
Associates. Inc. and directed its activities
23, Chad Seiders was a party to the above cases based on his actiVities 10
Connecticut aimed at Connecticut residents in violation of the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
24, Capital Recovery Associates. Inc. is a corporation engaged in the Debt Collection
business. primarily collecting on dishonored checks and is licensed to do
business in Connecticut.
25. In Musso. Henry and Lorusso an attempt was made to make service on Chad
Seiders pursuant to the waiver of services of summons provisions of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4. by mailing a copy of the Complaint to Chad Seiders in
Pennsylvania. In Lorusso, Chad Seiders accepted service under the provisions
of FRCP 4. providing for waiver of service of summons by returning the
acknowledgment of service. In Musso and Henry. Chad Seiders failed to return
the acknowledgment of service, Thereafter. services were completed in
accordance with the Connecticut law using the office of a Connecticut sheriff.
26. In the Donna Henry case. Chad Seiders has admitted that the twenty-five dollar
($25.00) return check fee sought to be collected from Ms. Henry was unlawful
- 3-
pursuant to Connecticut General Stat !i52-565A or !i36A.53 In the Donna
Henry case. Chad Seiders has also ad milled that he personally directed,
controlled or participated in the events alleged III the Donna Henry case with
knowledge that Connecticut law did not allow the addition of a $25,00 fee to a
dishonored check
27. In the Musso. Henry. and Lorusso cases. Joanne Faulkner did not send any
correspondence to Pennsylvania on behalf of her clients.
28. In Musso. Henry and Lorusso. Joanne Faulkner never appeared in Pennsylvania
or took any action on behalf of her clients in Pennsylvania
29. In Musso. Henry and Lorusso. Ms. Faulkner's dealings were with Connecticut
counsel. Donald Guerrini. who. through an insurance company. represented the
defendants in Musso. Henry and Lorusso.
30. The Musso and Henry cases have settled in favor of the respective plaintiffs.
Lorusso went to judgment in favor of plaintiff. which has been paid and satisfied.
Chad Seiders did not make a payment of proceeds in any of those cases.
31. In Musso, Henry and Lorusso. Joanne Faulkner earned a fee that was payable to
her by her clients from funds received in settlement of the clients' claims.
32. Other than: communications to my counsel. Stephen M. Greecher. Jr. related to
the cases brought against me by Chad Seiders. Hap Seiders and Capital
Recovery Associates. Inc., and sending the complaints in the Musso. Henry and
Lorusso cases to Pennsylvania pursuant to FRCP 4. I have not had any
communications with anyone in Pennsylvania about Chad Seiders.
-4 -
PRAECIPE FOR LlSTI;\G C.\SE FOR \RGL:\IE;\ T
,:'>Ius! be rypewnlten In<1 ~ubmlf[e<1 in <1uplic~!e I
TO lliE PROlliONOT.\RY OF CDIBERL..\,.....O COL::'<T":
Plc:uc :i.u the '.vltrun :"71Jner :"or ~.....~ nc"l ~.
.x.. P~:,. T:uo .\.(;:J~1C:it ..... :....;.
..urJm(nt C.Jur~
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAI'110N OF CASE
(entire c.ption must be 'I.ted 10 iulJ)
CHAD SEIDERS, an Individu,ll
(Pl.llltlfil
v,.
JOANNE FAULKNER
(Defendant)
V"
\0. 98-6296 G::l
98
:9_
1.
St.te matter to be argued Ii, ." ?l3llltiif, motion ,or new :nol.
defendant', demurrer to compWnt, "c.):
,Preliminary Obj~ctions
~
Identify counsel who will argue C:1Se:
3.
(.) for ?Iaimifi: Chad Seiders
Address: 4505 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
(b) ior deiendant: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr.
Address: 111 North Front Street, P. O. Box 889,
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889
I will notify :ill parties in writing ..vt:ain tWO d:lY'S :h::Lt :.h1s '::lSe n:lS been
listed ior argument. _
4,
Argument Court Date:
jiJlldoaf Argument List
Daled: February 10, 2000
. ;Attorney ior De fenda
Stephen M, Greecher, Jr, (#36803)
Tucker Arensberg & Swartz
P, 0, Box 889
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889
(717) 234-4121
...-.------
III 1'IIE COUI<T OF COMI1011 I'LEA:;
~"'
PERIlY COUllTY, PEtltlSYLVAllJA
IIAP SEIDEll:;, .Ill illdividu,ll,
I'(.AI NTI!'I'
vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
98-72G
JOANNE FAULKNER,
DEFENDAN'r
9 ? - I-)"C(c:' C!(L.J~ l
DEPOSITION of JOANNE FAULKNER was taken
telephonicdlly at the law offices of Tucker,
Arcnsburg & Swartz, III North Front Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Friday,
February 19, 1999
,-
t,
,
at 10:35 a.m,
APPEARANCES:
DEANNA LYNN SMITH, ESQUIRE
Attorney-at-Law
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
FOR: PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE
Tucker, Arensberg & Swartz
Attorneys-at-Law
III North Front Street
P,O. Box 889
Harri~burg, pennsylvania 17108-0889
FOR: DEFENDANT
ALSO PRESENT:
~. .J'
I
../
HAP SEIDERS
CHAD SEIDERS
COpy
~ .,:
J
1
IIlDE>: TO 1:>:IIIIlI'l'~;
PJ,AIN'I'J FF I S
EXIIIlll'l'
11ARKED
^
TIIIH'I'EEIJ-I'AGL Ol't/ltOll
4ll
."
r
A 'k J:
~.
"
I
,
,-...I
1-- .--._---
!
1 1 I
I
~ I
~
t
J Pub] ie,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
......) 25
.1
lJ 0 T ,\ 1< '{ C t: H T 1 ,. J \: ,\ T \-:
1, Kathy II. lIuy, ., duly c:o.C1l'\i:;:;loned Notary
and 'lucllilied in ilnd 101' the 11iddlo lJi::;trict of
l'onnnylvani." drJ hl'l"I..IJY l'l'rti I 't' tlldt IHIJ":.u"nt to the
Not.ice, thl~rc Cllr:iC 1)0101"(-' I'lC! tolt:!phoniC:i\l.ly 011 Fc.bruilry
19,1999, ,It lO:J:i d.:'., lit llal.-l..ifibufrJ, pcnn~ylvania,
the \d th i n- naMed pc r::;on '.:110 ',,,,:; ,,'.,:orn by ne to test i fy
to the truth and nothinq but the truth 01 her own
knowledge, touching and concerning the Matters in
controversy in this case; that she was thereupon
carefully examined upon her oath and the examinations
reduced to writing by me; that the deposition is a true
record given by the witness,
I further certify that I am neither attorney,
nor counsel for, nor related to, or employed by any of
the parties to the action in Which this deposition was
taken; and
Further, that I am not a relative or employee
of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties
hereto or financially interested in this action.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto
subscribed my hand and affixed my seal of office, this
jti.f0-day of March, 1999,
&~rtt---/jj~jj1T--
KATIl H, HOY
Notary uhlic
Notarial Seal
Kalhy H. Hay, Notary Public
1I111lef Pilxlon Twp. Dauptlin County
rAy Cor~H:W',~',lon rqNe~, Ocl 0. F)~l3
J
,
1 1
?
3
.1
"
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
..~__~(~J
25
~ T J P U L ^ T 1 0 H
It if; IH'I'('l>y !;tipuJilt.nd by ilnd between Coun!;el
for the ref'pcctivc pilrtie!; t11i1t tilt' f;e,1I incJ,
certification "nc.l 1 11 in" of tile Ucpoaition is wil.:.vec.l,
dnd all olJj ccti(Jn~,; dl"L! I."l!su1"vod, (.~xcept for tho form of
the question, until the time 01 triell.
* * *
~:)
,
"
\
,.
!
ii
,
G
1
1
I' l< 0 C I: r: D J II G S
2 :')\Wl<N:
3 JOANNE FAULKNER
3
4
MIL Gl<EI::CIIEH:
Uo[orc we get started, I just
5 wanted to put our understanding of what this Deposition
6
is about on the record.
It's for purposes of making a
10
r1R. GREECIIER: And the venue.
Of course.
7 record regarding the personal jurisdiction issues that
8 need to be resolved in this case,
9
MS. SI1ITfI:
And of course the venue issue.
11 Thank you,
12
I1S, SI1ITH:
And we're going to touch on some
13 of the preliminary objections.
14
MR, GREECHER:
We'll see where that goes and
15
we'll address that when it comes.
I don't foresee a
16 problem in that area but that's --
17
MR, SMITH:
Okay.
Well
18
MR, GREECHER:
But this isn't the substantive
i
,
I.
f
19
deposition in this case, if there is ever going to be
20 one.
21
MS, SMITH:
Right. We're going to focus on
22 the preliminary objections,
23
MR. GREECHER:
Okay.
24
MS. SMI'l'H:
We're going to focus on
"..)
25
jurisdiction and venue.
~
, .'
\
3
1
11H. G[<EECIIJ.H: OJ:"y.
4
?
t'1:;, srn '1'11: 'I'1l..t'. I" COI'I'I,Ct,
,
..
1
l '
3
standard stipulation:; fine with you?
~
~ll<, GHf:ECIIEJ.::
liD, I thinJ: '.-II} should just make
I',; i
5
our objections becilusa ot tho nature of '.-Ihat this is to
1,
:",\ 1
I
:t1
6
be used tor,
This in almont like a hearing transcript.
7
MS, SMITH:
Okay,
.
,
8
MS, HOY: Would you like her to read and sign~
,.
9
MR. GREECHER: Joanne, would you like to reae
10 and sign?
11
THE WITNESS: Well, yes.
12
MR. GREECHER: Okay,
I thought that probably
~
l :
'1
;
1
4 )
13
'.-Iould be a good idea.
14
MS, HOY: Could I send that to you and you see
15
that she gets it?
16
1m, GREECHER:
Yes, send it to me and I'll
17
send it to her.
18
MS. HOY: Okay, Thank you.
19
MR. GREECHER:
Do you want my card?
I
~
\
~
.
20
MS, HOY:
I got your address, Thanks,
,
21
MR, GREEcHER: All right.
I
~
"
22
EXAMINATION
,I
':1
i', <
~
24
Q Could you please state your name and address
I ,! (.~,~
~ i i
i I
, ,
11
Li
!" I
"
t', i "~I
" ,
r'v
,:-:-,':;r:r.:-
23
BY MS. SMITH:
25
for the record?
3
1
1
2
3
,1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. ,"")
13
A
J':lannf' 1.lulknor, L~J Avon ~;t.\'""t, IJe',: 1I.lven,
connecticut..
Q 1I.;lve YOll ever been depoc;od belor(!':
1\ ',' 0.:. .
Q 110'..: l~liJny t i I;H~S?
A Twice 1 think,
Q Then do you understand what it means to tell
the truth. the whole truth. and nothing but the truth?
A Yes.
Q Can you please give me a background of your
education starting with college?
A I went to college in Rochester. New York.
Graduated in 1960,
Went to law school in Ithaca, New York,
Graduated in 1963.
Q Now how long have you been practicing law?
A Thirty-something years,
Q And how long have you been specializing in l~w
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
MR. GREECHER: Let me just object to the form
of the question to the extent I don't know what
Connecticut's rules are in terms of specialization. I'm
not sure if they're the same as Pennsylvania's or not so
that may be a term of art specialization.
MS, SMITH: Okay, Let me rephrase that then.
J
11 l
4
1
that,
2
t'!l1at Ilrl ~~i)yin(! i:., tho d0tonclantG, the>
] defendants are located nationwide, About how many
4 lawsuits have you filed in the last three years?
5
rm, GREECIIEH:
Ue[ore we get to that why don't
G you lay a foundation as to where she brings her suits
7 and then we'll see if the question you're aSking now is
8 relevant.
9
MS, SMITH: Okay,
10 BY MS, SMITH:
11
Q
Ms, Faulkner, you bring your suits in the
12 District Courts, various District Courts around the
13 State of Connecticut, is that correct?
14
A
No,
15
Q
No?
16
Where do you bring your lawsuits?
17
A
In Connecticut Federal court/ there is only
18, one district, or in Connecticut State Court, There is
19 just the Judicial District of New Haven.
20
MR, GREECHER: There's only one district in
21 Connecticut.
22
MS. SMITH: Our attorney in Connecticut had
23 indicated there was more than one so that's why I asked
24 that.
..,.)
25
MR. GREECHER: Maybe there's more but there's
<
>
4
1
;,jR. .--;f\F.EC'HEH:
III I..'nnnc'ct ic:ut-?
2
r.::;. :jj1TTH:
I n C()nIlL~ct jell t.
Under~;tilndj nrJ i\t
3 all time;; that ::he'" llcCII:led tu rJL'actice l.nl in
4 Connl'ct.icut <loci thilt':. '../hor(. :;Jlc tilt,;>s hel" Liuitti,
5
t.;}.:. GHi-:ECflEJ.::
I\lHI lhdtl~j a~; fill' it:. thit; J.lnl'
G of quentioninq is goinq to qo, junt to get some broad
7 estimates to (jive you 1 ike il quantification'?
8
i.IS, SNITII:
Yes, Yes, that's correct,
9
MR. GREECHEH: With those understandings,
10 Joanne, I think we can proceed that far just to get a
11 quantification to indicate these quantities with also
12 the understanding that this is not a concession that any
13 of this indicates any contact with Pennsylvania.
14
THE IH'l'NESS:
300 to 400.
15
BY MS. SNI'l'H:
16
Q
In the last three years?
17
A
Yes.
18
Q
And of those suits how many defendants were
19 located in Pennsylvania approximately?
20
A
All defendants were licensed in Connecticut.
21
All defendants were conducting activities in
22
Connecticut directed at Connecticut residents.
23
Q But the defendants were not physically located
24
in Connecticut,
-J
25
Where were the defendants physically located,
13
\
,I
-
,
"
I
I
,
~...
_.j ~
1;1
\,
t
t:.
~;
,. ,
~
4
1
their officos?
2
MH, GHEECIII:H:
I.et "le ol>j<,<,t to t.he form.
3
Their ot1.icl!s, OKi\Y.
You I'Wilrl tlwy can be
~
located in Connect.icut by th(dl~ dl.'tivitioD.
5
11 S. S 11 I T II : T 11 e i rot t Leo S .
Their mai.ling
6 addresses.
7
TilE \'iITNESS:
I'm sorry, you'll have to ask
8 the question again,
9
I1S, SlH'fll:
I'm sorry?
10
I1R, GREECHER:
She said you have to ask it
11 agai.n.
12
I1S, SMITII: Oh, okay,
13 BY I1S, SMITH:
14
Q
Of the 300 hundred or so lawsuits that you
15 filed in connecticut how many of the defendants had
16 their place of business located in pennsylvania?
17
A
Around five or six.
18
Q
Well, your attorney had submitted a letter to
19 me and he indicated seven others than the suits
20 involving CRA or the individuals associated with CRA
21 such as Hap Seiders, Chad Seiders, et cetera,
22
A
Okay, One of those was not
23
Q
Is that correct?
24
A
a lawsuit though, That was my mistake.
..,d
25
Q
Well, the next question is how many did you
r
5
)
'j
.\
"
()
'I
1\
'J
10
11
12
J :J
l~
1 S
16
1'1
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
,,~) 25
----- --" ._- .------.- --~ .---------.-.
(., lIu'..: l"\,\IlY l'l it'ld:; IL.tVI'> YOll had tl1nt havf~ ever
nq'(.\vpd d Illtt'l'r or " pllonf' ('1111 1rOrl Fed0ral Bond?
1\ (lc)n't ~:110\'J.
1\ t II' d ~; t ullt' .
1..1 1~'lt II() n(Jl-t~ CII.'11 Ulll!.
:;(J il 1 cclllud Fuucl"dl l30nd and said --
1\ Iio.
/\t It.!:.I~lt olle.
V ^t leLlut one.
Could there have been more than one?
^ I don't know,
Q Well, do you remember ever sending them a
second demand letter?
A I said I didn't send them a second demand
letter, I sent them only one,
Q for one case?
A Yes,
Q What about in the past five years, going back
farther?
^
That was it,
One letter,
Q And you have had no other clients that have
ever received a letter or a phone call from Federal Bond
that you've represented?
A
I have no idea,
Q
Okay,
Let's move on to some of these other
18
I
J
:> 1
:~
3
4
,-
"
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
6
21
22
23
24
) 25
HUlld?
l
^
jU:il :;"id J didn't.
Q You don!t t"()cdll thi'r..
\'/hi.lt Llrf! the "'.'i'Y~) thilt you do servo defendnntE
i.n laHsllit~~?
^ [ c~n ~erve thorn by sheriff or by an
indifferent person if they're -- I can serve them by
secretary of the state, service on the Secretary of the
state, and I can serve them in Federal Court under Rule
4 .
Q How frequently do you serve people with
complaints under Rule 4-D?
MR. GREECHER: Objection to the relevance,
I mean unless you bring it into some
MS, SMITH:
Okay.
Well, let me give you a
foundation.
BY MS, SMITH:
Q The lawsuits filed against Capital Recovery
Associates, Hap Seiders, Chad Seiders, Denise Seiders,
and Larry Rosen originate with a letter or not with a
letter, with the complaint being received with a Rule
4-0 waiver and that is received from you.
When they failed to waive service, and this
has been standard in these cases and that's why I'm
asking, then you send a certified letter by an
t
22
6
1
individual 11.\1""(\ 11.,n"y !':.'I'I11", to: thi\t corroct?
2
A 110,
Q 110',:
A \;hy
<lcJ<'\ in.
do you :;(>nd the original complilint?
3
.1
don It you try .J(Ji' in, th~t last question
,-
~
6
NIL GHEECHEH:
I think the question got a
7 little confusing in its predicate I guess,
8
loiS, SMITH: Okay,
9 BY loiS, SMITH:
10
Q
The way that CHA. the Seiders, and Mr. Rosen
11 have received service of their complaints has been first
12 the complaint with the Rule 4-D waiver which generates
13 from you.
14 When they failed to waive service. you then
15 sent a certified letter with the return address of a
16 Nancy Marino.
17 I'm asking if that's correct.
18
A
No.
19
MR. GREECHER:
You're aSking in every instance
20 or
21 BY MS. SMITH:
22
Q
Then how did you serve Mr. Seiders in this
23 case? I mean Mr, Seiders. The Musso v, Seiders.
24
How did you serve him in the Musso v. Seiders
....)
25
case?
I
6
1
2
3
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
,\
Q
^
24
Ten.
And ho.....' did YOll ::;C14VC l\c,\llnn,/ collection?
1 don't recall.
Q Well, would your filc& have a record of hoW
you served these i nel i v i dUd 1 57 1. c" it you sent thel1\ a
letter and then had Nancy Marino send a letter or if yo~
had a sheriff?
^
Q
A
Q
probablY not,
You don't keep that in your file?
No.
Well, you frequently file cost of service
12 petitions with the Court claiming that you served these
13 people and didn't waive service, and therefore it'S
14
162-some odd dollars,
You have to have a record for
15 that in order to prove to the Court for your costs, is
16 that correct?
17
MR, GREECHER:
I object to the form
18 "frequentlY" but go ahead, you can answer the question.
19 MS. SMITH: Okay, Frequently is that --
20 THE WITNESS: Whether that was a question or
21 an assertion, but as an assertion it is not answerable.
22
MS, SMITH: Well, let me rephrase it then,
23 BY MS. SMITH:
,,)
24
25
Isn't it true that in cases with Capital
Q
Recovery Associates, Hap Seiders, Chad seiders, Denise
1
\---- --.
._e._ __.____"_..___.~>'_~____ -_._~ ---
-----. -,
")t I
. I
6
1
~;c:it1Cl.n, .lnU L;ll"ry HU:;Pfl, tllLtt \1)Jun Jdi lu1"(, t:o 'o'/;,ivp
2 ~jCrvi('i_' Y(J~I ~it't1t d i'I~J't il !l.d I..ttl'!" IJY :l,tfH'Y :.~<tr.)n() dn"
3 then YClU 111" ',:ith the 111::tl,;,.t CUUI"t in connecticut"
4 cout 01 :l<<,r'JiC'(l tell' dlJ!JI'O;";:I:\dtf,ly ~;l!J~'.'..\I'/
5
Isn't it tnll''?
'll~f" or 1107
6
A
:10,
'7
I.ill. Gl<EECHEH:
Ipt np just object to ralpvanc0
8 on that but go ahead and answer it,
9
THE \HTNESS:
>'eah,
You know -- Well, I'm
10
sorry.
I shouldn't comment about your multiple part
11 questions but perhaps that would give you some idea of
12 what's going on with your questions,
13 BY MS. SMITH:
14
Q
Well, you seem to not understand so I'm 'trying
15 to give you as much foundation as possible to explain
16 what I want you to answer,
17
MR, GREECHER:
I think the --
18 BY MS. SMITH:
19
Q
Do you file cost of service petitions with the
20 Federal District Court in Connecticut?
21
A
When appropriate, yes.
22
Q Have you filed any in the cases of Musso v.
23
seiders?
24
A
Yes,
>,-)
25
Q
And Lorusso v. eRA, et al,?
I
~
"
,-
, -
.,j,
6
1
i\
'i (I~; .
2
Q
In lIenry v. ('l\A';'
3
l\
., (." ,
4
Q
And in Ul-Oilll"",lY v. HOli[ln unu CH.A?
~
I1R, GIlEECIIEH:
It YOll l-eeall, Jo,lnnc,
6
TilE \'iITllESS:
I said yes to all of them.
7
HS, S:'1l 'I'll:
Okay,
8 BY MS. SMITH:
9
Q
Well, then when you filed your petition for
12
HR. GREECHER:
I object to the form.
10 your attorney's fees, didn't you have a record of how
11 you served them?
13 I don't think it's a petition for attorney's
14 fees.
15
I1S, SMITH:
well, she asked for $100
16 attorney's fees in each one.
17
1m. GREECHER:
Okay.
18
115. SMITH:
So it's relevant,
19
MR, GREECHER:
She files the petition,
20
MS, SI'1ITH:
Right,
But she asks for $100 in
21
fees.
And my question is how does she determine that if
22 she doesn't keep a record in her file how she serves
23 people,
24
MR. GREECHER:
I'm going to object,
".",)
25
I don't know how this is relevant to
J
r---'------..
- --- ----- -...------ ._-- ---_. -----
j lIl. i ;id 1 ct i \)11.
)-j[; :j~'lI'1'lI: \','0J 1, \.:(' __
I~IL GHEEClIER:
I mean service has been made in
tlhn~(' d j f [(1 1"tl 11t. cauo~.
r'1~;. :;Ml '1'11:
Uut it's hO~'J f;;Gl4Vlcc hlis beGn
made.
If there'G continual contact that she's causing
these pleadings and these demand letters to be sent to
Pennsylvdnla for a period of ten years, I mean certainly
that's going to be the Judge to decide whether that's
continual contact, not you or I,
11R. GREECHER:
Uh-huh,
MS, SMITH: So I do think it's relevant to
find out if she keeps in her files how she serves
individuals or co~porations,
11R, GREECHER:
Okay, And I disagree with how
the service is made, whether that's relevant or not or
whether
MS, SMITH: Well, that's something the Judge
will have to decide,
I1R. GREECHER:
Or whether even the fact that
she has brought suit in Connecticut is relevant to
juriSdiction but certainly for purposes of making a
record I'm not going to advise my client not to answer
these questions,
So go ahead,
BY I1S, SMI1'H:
~
I
7
r'--
I
!
I
,
I
I
I
I
Q
1
2
rpCd 1 J
J
/,
.j
:.
A
G
Q
'--I
" II .
,.<.'
~
:;0 <jt'ttinq )J<lt..:r: tu l\Cddur.y C(Jll(~ctjun:; (tu you
1)0',: )/ll\l :;,'rv,'d t lil'l:~.;'
1:0,
h'uuld ~'Ullt' 111u~" illdiG~!tl..! JIU'.1 YUlI :d.IJ'VI,UJ lhum?
110,
\':ollld your l'i1e,; inc!icute hO'.1 YOll "(!l'v"d
7 Cupitu1 Recovery or Hr. Seiders in uny of tho cu"cs we
8 previously listed?
9
A
10
Q
11 Bond?
12
A
13
Q
As to nny open case, yes.
Do you huve any open cases against Allied
No,
Do you have any open cases against Academy
14 Collection?
15
A
16
Q
One.
One,
17 Can you tell me how you served Academy
18 COllection in that case?
19
A
20
Q
21
A
22
,.
r
No.
Can you check your open file?
Not right now,
MS, SMITH: Well, then I'll ask that that be
23 produced for us, please,
24
....,j
25
advisement,
f1R, GREECHER:
We'll take that under
7
1
2 second'l
J
'--".::-']
,
j
I'll :;orry I C'dn ',','0 il1~;t qn uJ J
t.lle rp('{JJ.d d
(A di:1Cuf~~jon wn~ 1101d otf ~Ile J"ocurd.j
4 BY 1.1,';. ,;1.1 J 'I'll:
5
()
6
1\
7
Q
8
A
9
Q
10
hear.
And Federill Bond ilrc there any open tilen?
No,
Did you nilY no?
No,
Okay,
It's a little difficult to
I'm sorry.
I'm not meaning to be rude,
11 Credit America how milny times have you sued
12 them in the past three to five years?
13
A
14
Q
15
A
16
Q
17
18"
A
19
Q
20
A
21
Q
22 letters?
23
A
24
Q
,-~j
25
A
Once,
HOI-I many?
Once,
Once,
Is that a currently open case?
Yes,
Can you recall how you served them?
No.
Do you recall if you sent them any demand
Yes.
How many demand letters would you have sent?
One,
-l
I
----' -----.-.- ---
'lIl
7
1
~)
IJjd 'I 'Ill :;und ht.:dde:>\', Culll'ct.iun d dCl"i'l..Jnd
--\
l
lot tp r';1
'j
II
:lot to I'pnn:;:.;ylv;,niil.
4
Q
Cu\ll<1 you pl(',,\~;t' o;.:pldin;
I'
~
II
I deal with their connecticut counsel,
I sent
6 the demand latter to Connecticut coun~el,
'7
Q
Is that your standard practice with them?
8 I mean at some point you wouldn't have known
9 they had connecticut counsel, so initially you would
10 have had to send them a demand letter prior to learning
11 who their counsel was, is that correct?
12
A
No, not necessarily,
13
Q
So in the very first suit that you had against
14 Credit America do you recall if you sent them the demand
15 letter?
16
A
I just answered that question and I answered
17 it yes,
18
Q
We'll go down to NCO Financial systems,
19
How many times have you sued them?
20
A
Once.
21
MR, GREECHER: Once?
22
THE WITNESS: Once,
23
MR. GREECHER: Okay.
24 BY MS, SMITH:
I
Q
Is that an open case?
25
I
7 1 Ii ilu.
2 (' !\nrl
'j Ii 110,
ol
"
6
'7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'. j
I ....,~!. 25
,1(') YOll }'('(",111 hi)',,' i'r)lI ;1.1,j,. ;;(.t'vico on N'C'O:
Q Iii. t: i Olld] l\('l~iJ\'(' r',', Ilf'1',.; :'\d 111' t i :"t'H h,IVCt you
~HJt.~d lilul1l .i n thL' 1 d:>t thrpp to t j V(' YC;l I-:.;'
Ii OneC'.
Q And do you rC'call how you ncrvC'd them?
Ii 110.
Q Do you recall if you sent then a demand
letter?
A
No.
I probably did but I don't recall.
Q Is it your standard practice to send a demand
letter?
A
Well, I don't know what "standard" is,
In
some circumstances I do and in some circumstances I
don't,
I would say in the majority of the circumstances
I would send a demand letter.
Q So the majority of cases you send a demand
letter, okay,
Arthur Kusic, how many times have you sued
him?
A Once.
Q And did you send him a demand letter?
A I don't remember.
Q But most likely?
~
I
I
I.
-----,.----- .--------,
12 I
7
1
r.JR. GHl:ECIIEH:
You don't h.l\''' t.o '1\1('::::,
2
[.15. SiHTH: OJ,:",..
3
\';all, she just <>oi<.1 in tlH' ;'".,-joJ'ity 01 hel'
4 Ci1S8fi.
5
j.1R, GHEECIILI,:
l( i(j11 t.
6 BY M5, SMITH:
7
Q
And do you recall how you served Mr. Kusic?
8
A
No,
9
Q
Your Counsel in that sane letter indicated
10 that you believe you made approxinately three phone
11 calls to Pennsylvania?
12
A
That's right,
13
Q
I'm going to ask you if you know an attorney
14
named John Shniper,
He's located in Philadelphia,
15 pennsylvania,
16
A
I don't know him,
17
Q
Have you ever submitted an amicus brief in the
18 State of Pennsylvania?
19
A
No.
20
Q
How many plaintiff's lawyers around the
21 country would you say that you've assisted on fair debt
22 cases?
23
MR. GREECHER: objection,
i
,
I '
I...)
I"'
I
24
I don't see any relevance at all,
25
MS. SMITH: Okay,
Well, l~ister --
I"
8
1
N:j, ~~jlTII: \\'l,11, llyputllt,!Cl",ll:. oIt'u pC!I'I~\ittpd.
~
\
2
r~IL r.IHT('IIi:I!:
r f:no'.:,
But I I1p.,n it I!~ not
J beinCJ phI'ased th,)t "oIY,
4
l\nGlll~\C tildt ,/rlUl'
5
1.IS, SIUTII: OI:i1Y.
6 BY MS, SMITH:
7
Q
Let's assune thilt there was" Sarver v,
8 capital Recovery cnSQ, The brier was submitted and the
9 brief resembled briefs that were submitted in other
10 cases versus Capital Recovery where attorneys have
11 suggested that they received the brief from you.
12 So what I'm going to ask is how many attorneys
13 around the country do you assist with fair debt cases?
14
MR. GREECHER:
still the same objection,
15 You don't have to answer that.
16 That has nothing to do with the jurisdictional
17 issues here.
18
MS. SMITH: Well, it does because this
19 attorney in Pennsylvania seems to think he got
20 information from her to write this brief.
21
MR, GREECHER:
well, that's fine then.
22
MS, SMITH: And that would mean that she's
23
been contacting attorneys in Pennsylvania on FDCPA
24
matters relative to Capital Recovery.
j
'~~.
25
MR, GREECHER:
Why don't you ask her about
) .1
I
"
[1
I
j,
..---i
8
...'..,
'.,--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
Q
A
Q
1 don't l:no'",
So YOll'r"e nc)t aware he's [ran pennsylvania?
I am now, certainly,
And when you talked to him on tho telephone
what did you talk about?
A He asked me it I had any experience with
bounced check cases,
I said, yes.
He asked me if I had done any briefs in
10 bounced check cases,
11 I said, yes.
12 He asked me if he could have a copy of my
13 brief,
14 I said, yes, as I do with any lawyer who calls
15 me,
16
17
18
19
20
Q
A
Q
A
Q
And who generated this phone call?
Shniper,
And did you send him the brief?
Yes, I think I did.
And where did you mail it, if you weren't
21 aware he was from Pennsylvania?
22 A I didn't mail it,
23
24
25
Q
A
Q
How did you give him the brief?
I sent it to a fax number,
Do you have a record of that fax number?
36
I
38
8
1
Q
in pl?r:.~un; TIldt1fi Hhdt .1 "idS qoinCj to say.
2
1~I<, GHI.:r:CIIU,:
,)Oi\nnp, just. for the l)enElfit of
3 the court reporter ilnd T'll try to do this ond I'll try
4 to obide by thio alno, lot's let Doanno finish her
5
question.
1 know you can't see DO it'u kind of hord tor
6
you to figure out when she's finishing.
So just let a
7 little breok occur,
8
TilE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry,
Yeah.
9
MR, GREECHER:
You're kind of jumping in there
10 a little bit and --
11
THE WITNESS: Okay,
12
MR, GREECHER: I'll try to do the same,
13 too, when I want to open my mouth.
14
THE WITNESS:
Okay,
15 BY MS, SMITH:
16
Q
Do you know an attorney named Joseph Diorio?
17 He's also located in pennsylvania,
18
A
The name doesn't ring a bell,
19
Q
Have you ever had an opportunity to speak with
24
him on the telephone?
A The name doesn't ring a bell. I don't know.
MR. GREECHER: How do you spell his name?
MS, SMITH: D-I-O-R-I-O,
BY MS, SMITH:
20
21
22
23
, )
......
25
Q
He's also a plaintiff's attorney in
39
9
PhiliHlI'lphia thilt do"" " numb,,!, C'll I.oil' dobt cases,
1
2
J
~
1\
011, '~:...-.ll, thf'11 th(~ "n:;......or i:~ no.
:,11(, GHI:I:CIIJ:I(:
01, iuctiDl1,
\'Il' dC'ln I t l:nO'.,: t 1,.1 t "0 I ':1 i u"t obj oct i ng to
5 thut charactcrizdtion.
6
7
MS, SHITlI: OkClY,
rino,
MR. GHEEClIER:
I was going to ask you where he
8 is but that's not --
9
I1S. S!H TH:
He's in Phil~dolphia,
10 Pennsylvania.
11 BY MS, SMITH:
12
Q
I'm looking at your admissions, your answers
13 to our admissions,
14
15
16
17
18
MR. GREECHER: Do you have those, Joanne?
THE WITNESS: Yes,
MR. GREECHER:
Okay. Let me get my copy out.
MS, SMITH: Okay.
MR, GREECHER:
Go ahead,
I'll find them.
I
19 don't want to hold us up here,
20 BY MS, SMITH:
21 Q Question Number 7 indicated that you used tho
22 United states mail to serve Mr. Seiders and you denied
23 it,
......,)
24
25
What form did you use to serve Mr, Seiders?
The indifferent person, sheriff,
A
9
I ".''',
J
"".."
r
1
?
]
4
,-
:>
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
Q
lIr1ll hUH t! it! they du it'
^
r 11tl'l(, no i d0.,.
Q You c~n verily that ~incc you keop it in your
fill!~;, l:j tlldt ~:orl'(:l..'t:\
In the ~oiders v, Musso caso you tiled a cost
of service for $100 and attorney's feos?
A Right.
Q And the rest 01 the service curtainly somebody
should nave told you ~~ether the sheriff showed up or it
was sent throuCJh the nail, is that correct?
MR. GREECHER: Objection to the form,
BY MS, SrU'l'H:
Q Do you know that?
Do you knoH whether it was served through the
mail or by sheriff?
A Both.
Q She said both?
A I'm sure the sheriff -- The sheriff is
supposed to send it certified mail and also, and I don't
know whether she did or not, served the Secretary of
State,
Q Well, can you find out?
A Or if she did serve the secretary of state and
then send a copy through the mail.
Q So it does go through the mail?
9
1
II
~
, "
2
(1
3
^
" prOCO~i~".
5
Q
G off ice?
7
A
8
Q
9
10
11
From the ,;hel"i11, yeel,
Hh i eh YOll tc'l I t 110m to do it'l
I don't tell the sheri1t how to serve the
DoeG NDncy Milrino work for the sheritf's
Yes,
And what is her Dddress?
11R, GREECHER:
\'1ait a minute,
Does she work for it when now?
MS, SMITH:
I asked her if she worked for the
12 sheriff's office.
13 BY MS. SMITH:
14
Q
15
A
16
Q
17
18
Hhat sheriff's office does she work for?
Hartford,
Hartford?
MR, GREECHER:
What time period though?
MS. SMITH: In the last three years.
I think
19 she has used the same name for the last three years.
20 BY MS. SMITH:
21
22
23
24
,,,~.J
25
Q
Can you give me an address for Nancy Marino?
A
No,
Q
Can you find it out?
A
I'm sure I can,
It's on my computer,
Q
Okay,
Thank you,
41
J
42
9
1
You oJmitted that you tiled a cost of service
2 for the Musso v, Seiders, yet you denied that anything
3 we~t through the mail?
4
MR, CP.EECIIER:
Objection.
5 I don't think that was her testimony,
6 MS, SMITH: of;ay, \,e11 , it says right here,
7 Used United States mail, And she said, no,
8 MR, GREECHER: Well, I think that's not the
9 complete answer. I think if you read the complete
10 answer that describes what happened as she has just
11 testified,
12 MS, SMITH: Okay, But she didn't
13 MR, GREECHER: That she used --
14 MS. SMITH: But she still didn't verify that
15 they used the mail or not.
16 MR, GREECHER: But her testimony has explained
17 how the service was made,
18 MS, SMITH: okay.
19 MR, GREECHER: She personally didn't mail it.
20 MS, SMITH: okay. But she had somebody else
21 mail it.
22
MR, GREECHER:
That's a characterization,
I
23 mean service was --
._.J
24
25
MS, SMITH: Right, Certainly they can
MR, GREECHER: The service was made.
J
~
431
9
1
11S. St'.I'l'II: OkClY,
,~
\
2
/.lR, GREECIlEI<:
There was servico.
3
HS, SI~ITIl: And she sent it t.o the sher iff I G
4 officD tel mako servico.
5 BY MS, SMITH:
6
Q
Is that correct, Joanne, did you send it to
7 the sheriff's office to make service?
8
A
Yes,
9
Q
Well, there's some background questions I have
10 to hit on,
11
Ms, Faulkner, are you under the influence of
12 any drugs or alcohol this morning?
13
A
No.
14
Q
Did you consume anything whatsoever that might
15 impair your judgment or your memory?
16
A
No.
17
Q
Are you under any medication, prescription
18 medication, from a doctor or anything?
19
MR. GREECHER:
Objection,
20 You don't have to answer the question.
21 You've already asked any question that might
22 be relevant to any medication.
23
MS, SMITH: Okay.
24 BY MS, S~ITH:
i \,,~,)
.
t
25
Q
Joanne, have you ever been sued before?
9
^
'leG.
1
~
2
Q
Ilow many time-s?
3
11R. GREECIII::H:
Objection,
4 r don't seD who~o this hus "nythin~ to do with
5 ju~iodiction either so let'o move on,
6
i1S, SMITH:
Are you instructing her not to
7 answer'?
8
MR, GREECHER:
I'm instructing her not to
9
I mean if you can lay a foundation that it has
answer.
10 something to do with pennsylvania, I'll reconsider my
11 objection,
12
MS, SMITH:
I'm trying to find out if she has
13 been involved in any other actions within pennsylvania.
14
MR, GREECHER:
Okay, You can ask her,
15 BY MS, SMITH:
16
Q
Have you ever been sued by anyone else from
17 the State of pennsylvania?
18
A
No,
19
Q
Have any claims been filed against you with
20 the Connecticut Grievance committee?
21
MR, GREECHER:
Once again I'm going to object
22
and instruct her not to answer,
I mean I don't see what
23
that has to do with anything regarding jurisdiction,
24
MS, SMITH: Are you instructing her not to
:.,.,.)
25
answer?
44
\
"
I
[.
r
H)
1 these suits but I mean it you want tu knuw --
t'\
2
\,; ell, it' r; 0 II l' P o~;i t ion t hat eve l' y
11~;. :; r.lI 'I'll :
3 agency that ~h(.! I:~ gone at't(~r or dttornoy Dho"'JG a
4 repeating pattern and practice. I\nc.l if she causes the
5 letters and the demand letters and t.he phone calls and
6 the pleadings or whatever to be sent to Pennsylvania,
7 that that may be enough to establish a continual pattern
8 under International Shoe and get minimal contacts,
9 Also one purposeful contact could get us
10 there, So one demand letter of a fraudulent nature
11 could also give us the jurisdiction that you're
12 objecting to,
13 So where I'm going with that is the venue
14 statutes that go in hand-in-hand with the jurisdiction
15 under pennsylvania talk about a pecuniary interest, And
16 if she's receiving an income from these cases, then that
17 is something that we need to establish,
18 I mean certainly we know she has received
19 settlement moneys from Capital Recovery and so what I
20 need to know is of that money certainly some of that was
21 her income and certainly in the other cases she derived
22 an income,
""')
23
24
25
I'm not aSking her to disclose anything from
settlements that might be confidential, et cetera. I
merely want to find out. She's certainly making money
10
1
.1'1
off of people in Pennsylvania anJ WO'I'o t~yinu to
2 establish about 110':.' r.HICh.
3
J1R, GREECIIEH:
\1ell, see that's where we
4 dinaqrce.
5
6
7
8
9
MS, SMITH: Well, certainLy we can Jisagrec.
I mean that's something
l'lR, GREECHER: And it 100':5 like --
J1S, S!lITH: the Judge can determine.
J1R. GREECIIER: -- I thinl, we're going to have
10 to have a Judge determine whather we're going to give
11 any of this information because we don't see these cases
12 as established, these being contacts even with
13 Pennsylvania, given the nature, the underlying nature of
14 these cases and therefore we're not going to get into
15 how much money was made on these cases or any other
16 cases.
17 MS, SMITH: Well, certainly we can get into
18 the cases with CRA and Mr, Seiders and the entities that
19 are related there because she has received income,
20 And, in fact, I have a Federal Judge in
21 Connecticut who apparently thinks her fee agreement
22 is -- Do you want to make a copy of this?
23 Could you go off the record for a minute?
I
"'.~"".
24
25
~IR, GREECHER:
No keep on,
stay on the
record,
Go ahead.
....1
,--------------- --- -- ---------
-.-----.----.---"- -
.~_...__.,-_._--_.-
48
1
>~~;. S!11'l'i1: Oki\Y.
one ot the rCi.1~;()nfj ]
2 inqllirn i,; 11('call:'" "I'I'.,n-n\ Iy 1\1''- II'C' aIJ,'('c'l'lc.nt,; arC'
J quite lInllclIal and --
\'lvll, Ju you hdVC l\ document?
.1
,'lE. GHLl:CIlU{:
5
:'15. SIUTIl:
\':c.\l/ this In tram u case in
6
connecticut. I'n lookinq dt Deirdre MurphY versus
7
Equifax Chock services.
8
MR. GREECHER:
okay.
MS. SMITH: WOllld you like a copy?
9
Is this case involving
10
MR. GREECllER:
'les.
11 anybody in pennsylvania?
What this case involves is
12
MS. SlHTH:
Ho.
13 the nature of her fee agreements and what I need --
14
MR. GREECHER:
Do you have a copy? Let's go
15
off the record and then I'll get a copy of this.
16
MS. SMITH:
Ol,ay.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
17
MS. SMITH: We just handed out a copy of the
18
19 case MurphY versus Equifax and I guess I'll give this as
20 plaintiff's Exhibit A.
21 (THIRTEEN-PAGE OPINION, was produced
and marked for identification as
22 plaintiff's Exhibit A.)
23
MR. GREECHER:
I'm just going to --
MS. SMITH: We don't have to submit it.
24
But just so the record
J
MR. GREECHER:
Okay.
25
\
\
1
J
10
1
2
3
...-
-----..--
\-
is clont:" I'm ob'joctinq to tlH"l 1't!I(.vc\nct" ul thiG l;i1.:H" to
thi:; procecdin'l 1J1It qn .dll...d.
r1~J. ~~I'llTIl: O}':~\'l.
4 BY l'.f;. f;MITH:
5
Letls utart \.;ith the qucntlo11, '..lhat c.lOBS your
Q
6 standard fee agreemont state?
7 MR. GREECllER: Once again I'm going to object.
8 I don't know what hor standard fee agreement
9 has to do with whether there's jurisdiction here in
10 pennsylvania in this matter so I'm going to object.
11 MS. SMITH: Okay.
12 MR. GREECHER: And I nean --
13
MS. SMITH: 'lou're not going to let her
14 ansvler?
15
MR. GREECHER:
1<0.
16 Why is it relevant what her standard fee
17 agreement is?
18
MS. SMITH: Well, you know under the statutes
49
19 that her pecuniary interest in pennsylvania is part of
20 the standard. And we went through this about the income
21 that she gets.
22 Since it's your feeling it's not relevant and
11
,j
23
24
25
I believe it is relevant, and again we're talking about
having the Judge determine whether her income from the
other cases is relevant, her income from the cases that
11
sho Si--ttli;:d 'w'ith CH,\ dnd ;.11'. ~jt.idl."r~; rind till thi' Pil1-ti8S
1
2 involved, becauuu it'u olJviollcly the ,;anD qrollp of
3 people that ullL" u :;1I i nq on I)(>hall 01 tI\(. ';"11'"
11 i net i v idu<11s, ::;h.~! I :.,; --
5
1'.1<. GHEECII!:I<: \-1<)11, I'm CJoinlJ to --
6
foIS. Sll1'1'lI:
That income is relevant because
7 she's obviously carned moncy from people in
8 Pennsylvania.
9
MR. GREECHER: Well, that's wherc we disagree.
10
NS. SMITH:
Well, obviously that's right.
11
MR. GREECHER:
I don't thinl: --
12
MS. SMITH:
Well, what we should do --
\
13
MR. GREECHER: We don't even agree that any
14 money she made in any of these cases is necessarily
15
money she made from people in Pennsylvania.
16
MS. SMITH:
Well, the checks come from
17
Pennsylvania.
At least the checks in our cases.
And
18 she must cash them so she must know they come from
19
Pennsylvania.
I mean she takes the checks.
They're
20 made out to her.
21
MR. GREECHER: Why don't we have questions and
22 answers rather than you and I arguing the case.
23
MS. SMITH:
Well, because if you're going to
24
keep objecting.
I'm trying to lay the foundation so you
'-0,.,)
25 understand but if you're going to object and not let her
50
.
r
I I
"
"
.
11
1
that nh()f~; CJoinq t.o qnt thi:; I'H)l1('':' II'OI~l thu:i(! pdr'ticUli\l"
..-.
/. inctividu.")l~~ hOC"l\l~:(\ th"t'~~ -,<:by ~~lit' dn{>:-~ ',:b.-It" ~~h(~ dn(':~.
3
\'Iell, }0t'" q(.t iJ",'I: to tiH' c,,,;c.
4
HR. GRrr:('\IEP:
J I II, J 1'( ,t" t () tilL'
S Chal:ilcterizlltion.
6 Go ahead.
7
Il'l MS. SMI'l'H:
8
Q
Well, this Judgo in Connecticut leels that her
9
fee agreement is unusual.
I'n citing the Footnoto 6 on
10 Page 3 of the case.
11
MR. GREECHEH:
I object to relevance.
12 Go on.
13 BY MS. SMITH:
14
So I'm asking what her fee agreement contains
Q
15
so I can determine the income.
16 Are you going to object to that?
17 I could certainly guesstimate what her income
18 might be.
19
MR. GREECHER: Would you mind stepping out
20 again? Let me talk to Joanne a second and so we can get
21 passed this so we can get on to stuff that's really
22 relevant.
23
MS. SMITH: Well, we believe it's relevant so
24 I object to your comment.
."",,1
25
MR. GREECHER:
That's fair.
,..,
-,.
I'
.
~
"
,I
.'
,
"
11
1
2
,-'~......
----.------......--.-.....--
53
(11 dJ::cu,;,;ion ",',1:; 1\,.Jd "II tll.., 1'0Conl.)
111<. (;I<I-:ECIII:I<:
\, i tl\ ;In nl,-, <,cot ion rl'::el'vcd to
) r-el cvance we I 11 d i :~cu ~:.:~ till.' J t'U '1<J f"('erH! Ilt.
.1
mi. ::HI'1'II:
Ol;oi'/.
S Il'l 11S. Sloll 'I'll:
6
"/
8
9
10
11
Q
1'.5. Falllknet., do YOll have;, standnrd tee
ugreement that you llBC in tair debt cdses?
A no.
Q I'm c:orry?
11 No.
MR. GHEECHER: No.
12 We didn't hear you.
13 BY MS. SMITH:
14
15
Q
Again it was just difficult to hear you.
In the case of Musso v. Hap Seiders what was
16 the fee agreement?
17
18
A
Q
I don't understand the question.
You represent Mary Musso, is that correct?
19 A Correct.
20 Q And on behalf of Ms. Musso you sued Capital
21 Recovery, Denise Seiders, Hap Seiders and Chad Seiders,
22 is that correct?
""")
23
24
25
A
Q
Correct.
And when you obtained her as a client was
there a fee agreement?
I
1---------.--.- --- -----
~o1
11
]
,\
1 II:t (\)ll'y.;l
,-..
2
C!
h'h(~n you ol;t.djnf~u her 4lU il client, f1D. MlIn~)o,
3
wat: tl)er~ a lce ~qree~cnt wit)) Ms. 11us~o?
,.
4
,\
'{ f'~; .
,
, '
L
~'
5
C!
\";lhlL v.'dU LbL~ cutiLwnLti ur the [~e utJl.'C~Jl\ent7
G
I'll<. GI<EECIIER: IIG Lon') as wo hnvo an
7 underotanding this ion't considered a waiver of
8
p~ivilege, we can proceed with the understanding we
:'
.
9
still think this is irrelevant, all right?
,.
11
MR. GREECHER:
Right.
But I mean on the
10
HS. srUTH:
'lou think it's irrelevant.
12 privilege, this isn't a waiver of any privilege that
13 otherwise might exist in this case.
I
,
14
HS. SMITll: Okay.
Well, we're basically
,
.
i
I,.
,
15
looking at her tees.
16
HR. GREECHER:
Correct.
But I don't want
, ~
17
MS. SllITH:
I see what you're saying.
Go
19
HR. GREECHER:
By permitting her to answer a
18 ahead.
20 question regarding an agreement with her client, I don't
21 want that to be construed in any sense or at any time --
22
MS. SMrt'H: Okay. I understand.
I
I':,
i'
(;/l
f>-c.
23
MR. GREECHER: later as being a waiver of
24
privilege.
"",,)
25
MS. SMITH: okay.
Okay.
I understand. Go
12
2
3
4
~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
."",j 25
,--------- - -----------
1
alh1,ld.
1'1<. C.I<I:I ,'11111:
(d'.",;'
11,;;. :l'.l 'I'll:
OJ;,,}' .
1m. cln:rCIII:I<:
(ll; .,}' .
It j'l :-;01'ry, CJo iltle..Hl I Jo...lnne.
\~(d 1, I qllc..1C~,; tho question \-lilS, \-Ihat WdS the
[eo ngreemcnt ~ith Ms. Mu~so?
'1'111:: \; I TlII::Ci:; :
1 -- 1 can't ilnswer it ua
phrased.
Ask what you w~nt to ~sk.
r1R. GREECHER:
Ol:ay.
I'll let
I'm sorry.
Deanna ask the qlJDstion.
MS. S~lITIl:
BY NS. SMITH:
Okay.
l'lell, thank you.
Q In your fee ~greement with Ms. Musso on the
cases against Capital Recovery and the Seiders, what is
the contents of the fee agreement that relates to your
attorney's fees?
A The attorney's fees are an hourly rate or a
percentage of the recovery.
Q Who pays the filing fees?
A They are taken out of the recovery.
Q In that case you received a check from Capital
Recovery and Denise Seiders for somewhere around $5,0007
A I don't think so.
Q 'lou didn't receive a check from Capital
,.~l
12
1
Q
C~tpit"l l<Ol'OV(IJ~Y "lid Denine ~JuiUf!l'~ ~lcttlod tin
r -l
I
I
I
.--.---.-.--.-.... --
2 that l'~,:a' ,,,,,(. t>1,o}:t. dll{)ut" I r.1u:;~;o v. CHA, (lc-nine \'lnd ltd.p
3 Scitler~; 'Nd~ the ~ett.lL~:~\ent dr;)ollnt qrcdtcl" than $1,000?
9
^ y (. ~.~ .
Q Grei.lter th':lll ~:~ , U 0 0 ';1
I, Yes.
Q Greater than $:I,OOO?
A Yes, I think GO.
Q Greater t.han $4,0007
A I don't recall.
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
11R. GREECHER:
Let me just interject another
12 objection just to this point.
13 Because the questions are asking Ms. Faulkner
14 about information that is in the control of the
15
plaintiff, I think questions, they are improper.
I mea,
16 this is information that the Plaintiffs know so why
17 don't they just put on the table what the information
18 really is so we can proceed in that fashion.
19
MS. SMITH: Well, we also need to know about
20 her memory because she did testify that she has a good
21 memory but there are some things she doesn't recall and
22 I'm just trying to note how reliable her memory might be
23 in some of these cases.
24 I mean certainly we may need documents to
. ',-",)
25
support some of her answers because if she can't
r---.-----.- --
~
12
I
14t.!I:H)I:\lH'r, I ul ill:;l'111I_'(', 110\-; ;',11., :;t!l)d :;ol~lubody in .t
2 !;HH,uit th;.,tl:-~ not 0\'0n ..\ YC'ilI4 old, C't 1~0t.C'ril, pt
3 cetora, then her munory night cone into question dnd
4 cortainly ~.J(, ',,:ollld nt,-oel f,.iom(: l.hlCJ;Up docl1m(~nts.
5 So I' In try inq to determine I'Ihat r' m <)01IH) to
6 need to substdntiate her answers.
7 BY MS. SMITH:
8
Q
Getting back to your income from capital
9 Recovery settlcnents which we're focusing on, do you
10 recall the case of Chamberlin versus Capital Recovery
11 and Denise Seiders and Hap Seiders?
12
A
Yes.
13
Q
Do you recall how much that case settled for?
14
A
$10,000.
15
Q
And how much of the $10,000 was your income?
16
A The $10,000 didn't all come from Pennsylvania,
I
I
17
by the Hay.
18
Only $5,000 came from Pennsylvania.
19
Q
And the other $5,000 came from?
20
A
The insurance company.
21
Q
So of that $5,000 came from Pennsylvania but
22 out of the total amount how much was your income?
23
MR. GREECHER:
The same objection but go ahead
24 and answer it, Joanne.
.,-)
25
THE WITNESS:
It couldn't have been more than
12
GO
onl'-thinl J would thin)'. but] don't ,."",111.
2 Il'l I'.C. StH'l'lI:
3
Q
lJid you hd\/L' d 1 cc d{Jl.cl~I~{;'nt '.-11 th ~-1r.
4 ChQmborJln~
,-
~
13
G
A
\' e ~~ .
Q
Would tho leo ~grconent with Mr. Chumbcrlin
7 indicHtc how much your toes would bo?
B Y0S.
13
A
Q
A
Q
\-lhere you
case?
A
Q
A
Q
14 'les.
18 $10,000 was your income or your fees.
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~~)
25
A And I said --
MR. GREECHER: Asked and answered.
THE IHTNESS: I answered that.
r18. SrlITH: She said she didn't know.
Now I'm asking
MR. GREECHER: No.
She answered that --
13
-\
....J
I
I
1 I
\
2
3
.\
,;
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
._--_..-~
TilE l'il'I'IH:SS:
,\ r II i I"J.
1\1{. GHEI:CIII:R:
!lot I:Hl)"i-' ~-Il"n one. third.
TllE IHT!lESS:
!lot l\ul''' tlhln on" tllird?
!-IH. GREECllEH: "C',;.
r'IS. SiH'l'II: OLdY.
th'..Hl'.J II 1: !~IH' vhH;n I t. 11hl~~ing
a definitive answer.
HR. GREECllER:
!lot 110n.: than one thirLl.
I
"I rote it down.
MS. SHITll: Well, that waS good.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Okay, Ms. Faulkner, did you ever send demand
letters to capital Recovery Associates back in 1993, '94
and '95?
A
'95.
I don't recall anything earlier.
Q Nothing before 1995.
And how many demand letters
MR. GREECllER: She said she doesn't recal1
anything earlier.
MS. SMITH: She doesn't, okay.
THE IHTNESS: '90 -- Nothing in '90 -- what
did you say, '93 and '94?
MS. SllITH: 'les.
THE WITNESS: I don't recal1 anything other
than '95.
BY MS. SMITH:
(,1
I
, 13
i
1
d:Jkinq v/hat dr(~ .Ill thl~ dd:nd(Ju~; l.('cuvl'rdbl~
lIndel" till'
~-,
Fair Debt Collection IJI'dL'tic('~,;, I\<:t;'
2
3
1,15. fa.ll 'I'll:
'/ t!~; .
I'd I il':e t.o I:no\-l all the
,1 damt.HJeu rOl:ovul"~th ll'.
5
I'.R. GI<EECIIEH: \'Il' 11 --
6
~S. fifJII111l:
\'le11 , actually first I asked for
7
the statutory nnount.
So it she can just tell me the
8 statutory amount first, that was my first qllestion.
9
MH. GREECHER: Okay.
10 B'l MS. SMITH:
11
Q
So what is the anount of statutory damages
12 permitted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
13
MR. GREECHER: The specific dollar amount set
14 forth in the statute?
"
I,
I,
15
MS. SMITH:
'les.
16
MR. GREECHER: Which is not the only damages
;,I
,!,
I;
,
17
recoverable but the specific dollar amount.
18
THE WITNESS: 'lou're asking only for the
"
.i
'I
::
19
additional damages under 1692 (k)?
20
BY MS. SMITH:
'I'
'I:
'11
"I
:.:
21
Q I'm asking for what are the statutory damage~
22
up to a certain amount.
23
A Statutory damages are any actual damage
;'
,I!
24
sustained by such person and additional damages up to
': -....""')
25
$1,000.
C" l
1J
.....,
14
Ir",,..,J
1
2
3
4
5
6
______d._.__.. .___..._4____
Q And in your opinioll
I'.; that $1,000 pel:
violation nr pnt" CrI:;(I'?
l-iI<. (;HEEC'III':H: 01> jcct ion.
Thi:o i:o --
MS. SMITH: Tl\at is asking her opinion.
MR. GRl-:r:CIIEH: Yes.
I mean what's her opinion
7 as to the meaning of the law have to do with
8 jurisdiction or venue?
9
10
MS. SI'1iTH: Ivell, it has to do with some of
your preliminary objections and it certainly has to do
11 with why she's filing these lawsuits.
MR. GREECHER: I mean why she filed the
12
13 lawsuits
14
15
16
MS. SMITH: Against CRA.
MR. GREECHER: Well, the
MS. SMITH: Part of your objections, that you
17 objected to the unjust enrichment claims, you objected
18 to the fraud claims, and certainly, to answer some of
19 your objections, this information is very relevant.
20
MR. GREECHER: We've already answered those
21 objections. I've raised legal objections to those
22 allegations and so this inquiry is inappropriate at this
23 time.
24
25
I mean just so we can move on, I won't
instruct her not to answer this question if we can move
()(l
J
I
-------1
(,n I
,14
I
1
1<110 i 1 j <It" ',I i tilL Ii (' I' lie l'/1 .
."
2
1J'l 1'.f;. f;11ITII:
3
Q
~;o. in otlH'r "':01'<1,;, tlw up \:0 $1, noo :;tatutol'Y
4 v ioldtlon, i u t.hat. dctormlnc'd by the numbt,;"l" of
5 violations in one complaint or the entire complaint
6 regardless of how many violations?
7
A
That issue hasn't been decided in the Second
8
circuit.
I have gotten it both ways.
I have gotten it:
9 per violation, per letter, per case. So that issue has
10 not been determined.
11
Q
Okay. Those cases, were you involved in those
12 cases?
13
A
I'm sorry?
14
Q
Were you involved on those cases?
15
A
What cases?
16
Q
That you talked about where it has gone both
17 ways in the Second circuit as far as whether it's per
18 violation of per
19
A
Ma'am, I didn't say that.
20
MR. GREECHER:
No. She didn't say she was.
21
MS. SMITH:
No.
I'm asking if she was
22 involved.
23
THE WITNESS:
Decided in the Second Circuit.
i
"
'I
'"
,
'1"":$)
:j
24
MS. SMITH:
I just asked her if she was
25
involved in any of those cases.
----_.,--~----~-_.-
70
14
1
to do '......ith jllt"i~;di{'t ion 01" V('!lUl'.
~
2
14f;. !jj11 '1'11 :
\'.'e II, the q('nf.~:; i:; 01 _\ 11 her
:l I<Hlfali tG i,; baGr:d on ,\ ,'etllrn c'I".d: 1'_'('.
4
hnd in t.hc' ca:-.c, ldhilt. qf~nr>I..\tcd thir; lawsuit,
5 the \-/ho 1 e i s~;l1C \'ldl; a r0 tu rn chcc~: f el~.
6
So I'm asking [or her opinion on what she
7 believes the return check fee to be.
8
9
10
11
HR. GREECHER:
Ol:ay.
I mean
MS. SIUTH:
I mean it's certainly relatively
simple.
I mean in her opinion she should --
MR. GREECHER:
I mean the complaint, where we
12 are now, is you have made allegations in the complaint,
13 we have objected on various grounds including
14 jurisdiction.
15 MS. SMITH: Right.
16 MR. GREECHER: And I mean your complaint sets
17 forth the nature of your claim and what it arises o~t of
18 and I still don't see what Ms. Faulkner'S opinion as to
19 the current return check fee is in Pennsylvania has to
20 do with anything with jurisdiction.
21
MS. SMITll:
It's the contents of her letters,
22 her demand letters, and the contents of her complaint
23 that she mailed into the state.
"""'<rs:f:1
24
25
MR. GREECHER:
I mean I think --
MS. SMITH:
I mean certainly the basis of some
.-!
15
"-
1'- ,
:!
:i
"
I
,
"!
c
J,i
;;!
"
:'1
I'
1'1
'i
;'
"
j
;il
i[
'1
'I
"
I
Ii
I"~'..J
;!
'I
:i!
,;
r
1
quost ion~;.
2
11H. GHEECIlf:H:
SUl"f' .
)
115. .';rnTII:
As to whnt YOII Are golnq to
4 llono it.
5
MH. GHeECIIEH:
110. Ask them all so I neon if
6 you want to get them on the record.
7
MS. SMITH: okay.
8
B'l MS. SMITH:
9
Q 11s.
Faulkner, con you tell me what the
10 defenses to the FDCPA are?
11
MR. GREECHER:
I mean first of all --
12
MS. SMITH: Well, she has been doing --
13
MR. GREECHER: I'm going to object to
14
MS. SMITH: this for thirty years.
15
MR. GREECHER:
I know.
But this isn't
16
~IS. SMITH:
She must know what the defenses
17
I want to see what her knowledge is and what her
are.
18
memory is and certainly
19
MR. GREECHER: We're not going to answer that
20
question either on the grounds of relevance and I think
21
it's too bcoad also. I mean there are --
22
MS. SMITH: Well, there are only a few
23
defenses.
24
MR. GREECHER: okay.
Go on. Just move on.
25
MS. SMITH: okay.
72
"l
lW r'.~;. SMITH:
Q 11,;. !'dlllf:Ill'l', ,)1'0 you Llmil Lll" 'dith the
licensinq Pl"ilcticc:; in till:' :;tiltc ot connecticut?
1m. r;pr.r:cllr.r"
f<p(Ji.tJodlnq V,'hilt?
l-IS. :jIHTIl:
}{uqilrdinq collecLiull agencies.
11R. GHEECHEH:
Go oheud, Joanne. Arc you
familiar? I'm CJuing to object on the grounds of
relevancc but
THE IHTNESS:
I don't see that this has
anything to do with pennsylvania jurisdiction, but the
ans~lcr is yes.
MR. GREECHER:
I'm just going to reserve my
objcction to thot but go ahead.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Are you aware that Capital Recovery Associates
and its employees are licensed in connecticut?
MR. GREECHER: Objection to the form.
It's compound but
MS. SMITH: Okay.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Are you aware that capital Recovery is
licensed in connecticut?
A I don't know whether they are currently
licensed. I know they have been in recent years, yes.
Q And to the best of your knowledge would that
15
1
illso include capit\\l HC'coveryl:. t.'I:II.Jluyoc~ unuer t.hi\t
2 liconsc?
3
HH. GREECIIER:
uid you hear the question,
4 Joanne?
5
6
7
TilE IHTNEf;S: 1)(,11, didn't I ,'nS'del" it?
I said, no.
MR. GREECHER:
ah, I I m sorry.
We didn't hear
8 you. Wc're sitting hcre with bated breath. Nobody
9 11eard you.
10
THE WITNESS:
I thought I fool-mixed you by
11 the answer.
12
13
14
15
16
17
You did. We didn't
11R. GREECIlER: Oh, okay.
hear it.
THE WITNESS: I said no.
MS. SMITH: I'm sorry noV!o
off.
BY MS. SMITH:
Now I was thrown
IB Q Did you ever discuss CRA's licensing status
19 with any other individuals?
20
21
22
MR. GREECHER:
I mean this may be privileged.
So I mean the question is too broad.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
23 BY MS. SMITH:
.J
24
25
Q Did you eVer discuss CRA's licensing practices
with any other attorneys?
74
.-J
,',
,I
i,15
1
NR. GREECIIJ:H:
In Pl'nlh;ylv"rJi,\?
2
I'IS. f;N)T":
Tn P('nnf~ylvjlni".
,I
-I
J
TilE \HTNI;~;:;: llo.
4
r~s. SNIT":
And YOII'rc not going to let her
,I
I
,
':
I,
"
:i
:1
I
,1
I
!j
unGwcr to ~ny other ilttornCjf; --
6
NIL GREECIIEH:
You didn't ask the qllestion
7
yet.
8
MS. SNITH:
Ol:ay.
9
B'l MS. SllITll:
10
Did you ever discuss CRA's licensing practices
Q
:1
,I
t
11
with any other attorneys outside of Pennsylvania?
12
MR. GREECHER: Go ahead, Joanne, and answer
13 it.
j,
I
I,
14
THE WITNESS: Connecticut's licensing
15 practices you mean?
16
MS. SllITH:
No.
17 BY MS. SMITH:
18
Q
Whether or not CRA was licensed in
19
Connecticut, did you ever discuss CRA's licensed status
;j;
I
20
to any other attorney other than from Pennsylvania?
21
A
Okay.
I'm sorry, you'll have to do that
ii
,i
1
)
Ii
II
I,
,I
" I
'-'_, .A
;'I~'
',I
"
:j
'.j
:i
,I
,'1
22
again.
23
Q
Okay.
Did you ever discuss eRA and its
24
licensing, whether or not it was licensed, with any
25
other attorneys excluding Pennsylvania?
75
I,
I
1
I
i
i
!
1
1'\
I
i
1:
J
~
i15
,
l
',-..
,. ,
, ~1
"
!
:'
II
il
!I
11
,
(:
j
I,
'1
i'.)
I
,I
i
77
1
Now aho has haJ more contact with Mr. Shaw it
2
from his testimony in another case.
L1ppcars
I'm trying
3 to determino exactly how much and how that does relate
4 bccallse WQ do tlnVG other c~nQS in Pennsylvania.
5
Anti Ul10 may be nssisting ottlcr nttorneys in
6 suing us in Pennsylvania and it may be somewhat indirect
7 but it's still contact.
8
f
In other words, if she's also sUbmitting
9 briefs to people in Arizona advising them of how to sue
10
CRA.
So I'm just trying to find out the nature of her
11 conversations with Mr. Shaw.
12
MR. GREECHER:
Do you have a statement or
13
anything or any documents regarding Mr. Shaw?
14
MS. SrUTH:
I have a deposition of Mr. Shaw
15 where he admits to talking to Joanne about Capital
16 Recovery.
17
MR. GREECHER: And do you contend that that
18 deposition supports any of these jurisdictional
19 allegations?
20
MS. SMITH:
I believe it may, yes.
21
MR. GREECHER: Have you produced that to us
. '
-,
,-
22
before this Deposition?
23
f.'
MS. SMITH: No, I did not and I apologize.
We
1-
r.;:
24
just had it so it's relatively new.
25
MR. GREECHER:
Well, I mean I'm going to
~
'16
,.........
!l
I~
"
:~
i'i
Ii
'1
!)
II
il
J
I
l "',..)
1
,j
'j
1
1-
7~ l
ilo'.': obvjou:,I'1 11,. Il..:: to <jot the inforniltion
2
i1bout Connecticut Iron :;ow:!'.-:l1ore anet \1hy \1ould he only
3
pick Connecticut.
Do you nee what I'n saying? I mean
4
thoroln {'ifty stilto~~.
It j\lnt. ,;(":010'; " 1 ittle odd th"t
5 he focuses on this, too.
6 So I just wnnted so~e genernl questions to
7 find out if she submitted briefs in those cases that
8 were also against Capital Recovery.
9
MR. GREECHEH:
Well, let me just say my
10 position is that anything she did with Mr. Shaw
11 regarding his cases, \1hich presunably arose in Arizona,
12 is not a basis for any jurisdiction in pennsylvania,
13 but --
14
HS. SfHTH:
But his letters to pennsylvania
15 indicate this information that he obviously received
16 from some\1here.
17
HR. GREECHEH:
Okay. Then give me the
18
letters.
19
HS. SMITH: Okay.
So we'll have to do another
20
deposition.
21
HR. GREECHER:
well, maybe we don't have to do
22
another deposition but produce the letters and 1'11 let
23
you ask some more questions about Mr. Shaw so that we
24
can have a record here, but my position is this is not
25
relevant but go ahead.
"
,
I
~16
,
i'-'
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I ,,,..,I
i
I
I
1
r
I
I
I
I
(;I<I':I-:CIII:H: i,nd
80
~ ~ , .
,'...).
:;:,1 I '1'11 : () I~" \' .
"
,.
I,:/<.
J
j.J:~. Sl1 I '1'11 : Do CGn she ans'.~ler the question
01 vJhat. did nlH' d i [-,ClHi'.., 1d i th Hl~. 8h"'...'7
,
~
1'.1(. GHI::F:CIlEI(: About:.
6
MS. SMITIl: About CQpitdl Recovery.
7
l^lell, let me CJo bilCI:. 1'11 stilrt over.
8 B'l MS. SMITH:
9
Q
Ms. Filulkner, did you ever talk to Mr. Shaw on
10 the telephone?
11
A
Yes.
12
Q
About how many times?
13
MR. GREECHER: You don't have to guess.
14
MS. SMITll: Wilit. ~lait. No.
15 BY MS. SMITH:
16
!
i
I
I
I
i
i
Q Approximately how nany times did you talk to
17
Mr. Shaw about Capital Recovery or Mr. Seiders?
18
A I don't recall talking to him about Mr.
19
Seiders.
20
I talked to him about CRA once or twice.
21
Q And what did you talk about?
22
A He asked me if I ever heard of CRA.
23
I said, yes.
24
He asked me if I had ever sued them.
25
And I said, yes.
,
,
I
1-----------
I
yuur d:~:.;iL.tllncu on ,-,
tnir
Did
ht. V\'l.'r d:il~ lot'
(l
2 dellt ~~i'~in?
J
1\
CHI, lair ucbt case, no.
4 Q Did you ever tell hin whother or not CRA waD
5 1 iC'-'IlJ,-,d in connecticut;'
6 ^ Not that 1 recall.
7 Q Did you ever tell him how much money you might
8 have settled a case for?
9
'les.
A
10
And how much did you tell hin you settled the
Q
11 case for?
12
$7,500.
A
13
Q
Do you remember what case that was?
14
A That was the Adams case and it also settled
15
against Efron and Allen. So that was three cases.
16
MR. GREECHER: These were all parties in the
17
same case?
18
THE WITNESS: They were all parties to the
19
settlement.
20
MR. GREECHER: Okay.
21 B'l MS. SMITH:
22
You have to give me a moment to compose my
Q
23 thoughts for a moment.
24 When you spoke with Mr. Shaw did you ever
25 discuss CRA's collection practices?
81
.
i
,
,
Ii
I"
I
i
i
i
~
",
0:>
1
Probably.
I don't recdll any upcciLic
,\
2 diDClJ~nion.
3
\'Iould you have tal}:od about ,;pcciLic
Q
4 violations undcr the Fair UclJt Collection Prdcticcs Act?
5
6
HR. GHEECHER:
I olJjoct tu th(~ [Ol-II.
f1S. S~lI 'I'H :
Of:ay.
7 B'l MS. SMITH:
8 Q Did you ever tell 11r. Shavl about any of the
9 alleged violations against CRA that you had?
10
11
I don't recall.
Did you discuss any othcr individuals with Mr.
A
Q
12 Shaw that are related to CRA?
13 Well, let me just list the individuals.
14 Did you ever discuss llap Seiders with Mr.
15 Shaw?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't think so.
Did you ever discuss Chad Seiders?
No.
Did you ever discuss Denise Seiders?
No.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Did you ever discuss Larry Rosen?
'les.
And what did you say about Mr. Rosen?
I didn't say anything about Mr. Rosen.
'lou just talked about him in general?
........-.
;
I
i
I
;
,
I
I
j
i ,_.J
\
,
i
,
1-----
81
1
^
I jlWt 01:;1;('<1 i I :,110. ~;l1dH had [,Vel' Hued
no.
2
Iolr. HOBen because I found on the J nte rnet tl1a t there 'Nil n
3 an Arizona case against Mr. Hasen and he said yes.
4
Whero did YOll find th"t on tho Internet?
Q
5
A
Thero 's it P 1. dce '..Ihe )'e you c:a n dO'Nn I oild all
6 the all the suits thdt I\ave been filed.
7 Q You mean all the fitir debt suits or just --
8 A Generally speaking any suit.
9
011, any suit.
Q
10
Did you ever discuss
11
Hhich for Rosen, which I did, after I sued
A
12 him, I found a case in Arizona and it was Mike Shaw's.
13
And did you ever talk to Mr. Shaw about stacy
Q
14 Allen?
15
A
Yes.
16
And what did you discuss about Ms. Allen?
Q
17
That was the settlement of the $7,500 against
A
18 Allen and Efron.
19
Did you ever talk to Ms. Allen during that
Q
20 settlement?
21
A Ms. Allen is in Maryland.
22
Q But she also was CRA's corporate counsel and
23
she had an office in Pennsylvania as well as in
24
Maryland.
25
A Not at the time. Not that I know of.
17 1
,,~ 2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
only -- 1 didn't h,lvl' <11)'/ ('()J\Vl'l':;dt i.nn with
hor except that ',;lIen ,;lIe, "ot ny d'.'l'1.,nd !"ttn," in
11aryland >>he Cdlled r;u to >lilY "Ill' h"d nUv('r heard of .'.s.
Adam:., nho h;ln npvot' ncnt ;"\ l(itt(.J" to ;.~~.. ^dalnn ~ln(l aho
didn't f:no',J anythinCJ about 1,1<;. Adan,; <Inti ,lOuld I stop
botherinq hOl".
Q And so in that case you sent lettors to both
Ns. Allen and to eRA. is that CD1"l'C'ct, in the Adams
case?
A To Ms. Allen in Maryland, yes.
Q And did you also send a letter to CRA?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did Ms. Allen respond to your --
A
l,ai t.
Did I or didn't I?
I can't remember. I think I did.
Anyway, go ahead.
Q Another question, Ms. Faulkner.
Were you aware that CRA had not been
conducting business in Connecticut for most of 1996 and
1997?
MR. GREECHER:
I object to the form.
You can answer it if you understand the
question.
THE WITNESS:
B'l MS. SMITH:
I don't understand the question.
I
I
n:'l
17
1
Q
Dl1t"lnrJ 1~0G dnd If)l)"} ',,'('n' YOll .1"",,,),(. t.hl,t CHA
? did not t;end dny l(.tt"I'~; in1fl till' ::1.\tl' 01 ('onl\(#(~ti(~ut?
J
A
Thdtl~.,; not trul',
,1
JoIR. GIIJ:I:CIII:I<:
t:nd,'l' \;11011 t il'\I' pPI'intl:
"
W;. Sll1TII:
It \~'ould hdVL" bpl.)n fL~on "bout
6 February of ''1<l throuqh October" 01 ")'1.
7
And curiously thcre werc no lawsuits during
8 that period.
9
1m. GREECllER:
Let ne object to the gratuitous
10 comments.
11
MS. SMITH:
1'1'1 sorry.
12
MR. GREECHER:
I mean I still object about
13 February '96.
14
MS. SMITH: Well, I have to get the exact
15 dates.
16
MR. GREECHER: All right.
17
MS. SMITH:
I'm working on that. Obviously
18 everything is computer driven and it takes a program and
19 it takes a good deal of time but obviously she said that
20 wasn't true so.
21
MR. GREECHER: Is there a question?
22
MS. SMITH:
Okay.
I thought you were still
23 looking.
24
MR. GREECHER: No.
.. )
25
MS. SMITH:
Okay.
I
J
r
u__________.____.
.17
1
BY !1~;. ::M 1 'I'll:
86l
I
I
-,
2
Q
r.ln. I'dll J J:nc.r, dn:. you il'../ill.(> t.hdt tohn c~l ientn
3 th<lt you have 1'L'pn";t?nt'.d dlJilinst eRA and the !leiders
4
all wrote bad "hel'''::?
'.
,
,-
"
MIL GIU;t;CIlf.R:
01, j '-'c:t: ion.
,
~,
6
Relevance.
I ~ei1n that doesn't h<lve anything
7
to do with it.
~
8
Whether these checks were bad or good or
13
MR. GREECHER:
Sure.
9 indifferent has nothing to do with jurisdiction in
10 Pennsylvania so we can nove along.
11
MS. SMITH:
\,ell, I'm going through my
12 questions.
14
MS. SMITH:
I obviously had a block of
'\
,
\
,
15 questions devoted to that issue.
16
I'm trying to go through that issue on my
','
19
Q Ms. Faulkner, did you ever speak with a
~
.
i
:/
"
~~
17
list.
18
BY MS. SMITH:
20 gentleman named Mark Bradshaw?
21
A
Yes.
22
Q
Did you ever send him any correspondence?
23
A
Not that I recall.
,
I
I
it;
I
24
Q
Any faxes?
25
MR. GREECHER:
Do you have something that she
17
1
,;cnt tu ~lr. 1l1-..d:,I].I',,"
t'""'\
2
1-1~. :~:1 J 'I'll:
J '1'\ ,I,,};inq t.ilc que,:tion it :,;he
3 recalls sondinlJ ,1111' LI>:CS and Iptters to 11t". lJradsh,HI.
4 ny I~S. SMITH:
5 Q Ou yuu rucdll upodking to Mr. Bradshaw on the
6 telephone?
7
A
lie c<'lllecl ne.
8
Q
And what did you talk with Mr. Bradshaw aboulJ
9
A
About settling the -- settling a case.
10
Q
Do you recall which case?
11
A
It was the Adams case.
12
Q
That too was the
13
A
No.
It was Chamberlin.
14
I think it was Chamberlin.
15
I don't know which one it was.
16
'les, it was Chamberlin.
17
MS. SllITH:
Can we go off the record for a
1B minute?
19
MR. GREECHER:
Off the record.
20
(A discussion was held off the record.)
18
21
MS. SMITH:
Just only a few more.
We're goin~'
22 back on the record.
23 Just to note for the record Mr. Hap Seiders
u
24 gave $200 in cash to Mr. Greecher to hold in escrow for
25
the payment, in part payment, for the long distance fees
87
.
~.
..
i'l
: '
!
. . ~
~
18 1
".--, 2
.' '
J
4
!)
6
"/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1-------
!
'-'-"'--'-~'--'-'-'--',,-, ---. -- ---- "--'P--
-----,
U0
'I'llI'. \;lTljJ::,;:;: ~,'(.11, j}l'C,'I1:,t. ()J hj~_~ dC'tlviticn
in Connpctll'\lt- "imt.(J ,It C0I111l,(.t jl'llt 1'4'~;i~J(.tlt:; in
violatiun ul lh" Lt',,' ill COIIII.,,;t iC:lIt.
Il y f1~:. :;t'. J 'I'll :
Q In violation of which Idwn?
I,ll<. GHEECIIER:
Of the law in Connecticut.
I.
"
"
t1S. S;U'l'H:
Of the law in Connecticut.
What?
r
MR. GHEECHER: Okay.
HS. SHlTH:
Can I ask what law, please?
MR. GREECHER: What law?
'l'HE 1'iI 'l'N ESS :
'les.
The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
BY MS. SflITH:
Q And \-Ihy did you sue Hr. Chad Seiders?
A The same reason.
Q And Denise Seiders?
A The same reason.
Q And Larry Rosen?
A The same reason.
Q Are you aware that CRA is insured?
A 'les.
Q In the past \'Ie discussed several settlements.
.
\
.
n
[
'r',!
-"-
I
Did CRA satisfy those settlements, the company
CRA?
'~
1-------
I
'lB
1
1,: I,. (; HITCH 1.1< :
C(lul d Yll\l i II:;{
----~.
'jU I
I
2
I/~:. :: ;.11 'I'll :
{jLd,' .
Il.t ,'" 1,,,,0111"01 ~'.p.
3 LJ Y !.1:;. :~ I~ I '1 II :
.1
o
Lid C'HA :;dti:-.ty -Ill YUIll 1!J"'JiUll~i :.et.tlt-,mcnLu
.,
5 \Iith them ',Iith the c>:c,-,ption 01 till' ~'"o(j(j thilt C,)i:\!1
6
f I"on t.ho i nSlI rCl nCe> l'onpClny7
II
-'
7
^
I don't kno~ where the nonoy cane irom.
8
Q
But you did receive il checl; iron capital
9 Recovery?
10
^
1 don't i:no\;.
11
Q
But you received money iron those cases?
12
A
I received money from the cases, yes.
13
Q
Do yell believe that Rite Aid Corporation
"
,
14
extended credit to any of your clients?
II
"
15
NR. GREECHER:
Objection to the relevance to
16
this case and at the status of this case.
(
17
HS. SNITH:
Okay.
IB
Well, then I just have one last question.
19
Well, that's true. Rite Aid is headguartered
21
MR. GREECHER:
But whatever they did, they did
20 in Pennsylvania.
22 in Connecticut.
23
MS. SNITH:
Ol;ay.
24
MR. GREECHER: And how does that establish and
~"/
25
how does anything that Rite Aid did with her client
1B
1
",;tabl ir;h :I lid f;dict ion OVC'l" ",;. Fall] knet'.
>~
2
!io that'!; ',.;flY ','/C"rc olljectinq .Joel l..:e're not.
J going to (1Il:~W~t-.
4
11:,. :;H I 'I'll:
\'icd 1, let me asl: another question.
5
l'lH. GREECHEH:
Sure.
6
Can I? Thank you.
11:3. SH I 'I'll :
7
BY t1S. SMITH:
8
Did you ever contact Hite Aid corporation in
Q
9 Pennsylvania?
10
Is that the end of the question?
A
11
Did you ever contact Rite Aid in
Q
Yes.
12 Pennsylvania?
13
I served a subpoena on Rite Aid in
A
14 Pennsylvania in connection with one of the outstanding
15 lawsuits, yes.
16
Q And how did you serve that subpoena?
17
A The way subpoenas are supposed to be served ir
,
f
18
the normal course of litigation.
I'
I
,
I
I
i
i"
"
i'
"
!,
:'
19
MR. GREECHER:
I don't think she heard your
20
question.
21
MS. SMITH: Well, okay.
22
BY MS. SMITH:
23
Q Did you mail the subpoena to Rite Aid?
:!U
24
I mailed it certified mail.
A
25
Q
Is that the only correspondence you've had
,,]
f'
~>
,
,.
,
t
I
I
\
,
, "I
,
," !
" \
,
k.
...~
-18
:[
?
,lith I<itf' /i\,U
....."....,
A
I tll i Ill,:
';ent then ,) tollo'd-lIP letter ilsl:inrj
J them to cOI'pl)' ',dth the sUbpoenil ",; a pl-cdil:linilry to
4 entorcinq it.
5
6
Q
^
And )'011 sent that letter perHun"lly?
'le5. In the course of litigiltion in
7 Connecticut.
8
9 though?
10
Q
Well, you sent it to Rite Aid in Pennsylvania
A
I sent it in the course of litigation in
11 Connecticut.
12 Q But where did you send the subpoena and the
13 follow-up letter?
:~)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
A
Q
I sent them in Connecticut.
No.
But where did you send them to?
To Pennsylvania.
To Rite Aid headquarters?
I don 't knOl".
Oh, okay.
As a matter of fact.
But to Pennsylvania?
I think so.
Q And that is the only contact you've had with
Rite Aid?
92
I
1-'
1
, 18 1 I
: ,...-." 2 hill?
J ^
l~; thilt. till' onl y contilct YUlI' 'Ie h,\d '. i th
~
Ri to I
Yes. i~ith l'Qq~J'd to CRA, ye~:.
-I
Q
Did YOll I,,,vv dny oth",!.' ..:ant"..:t-_ ',:itll lUte t\id
,-
~
other than with CRA?
G
^
Not that I rcrnenbcr.
7
Q
okay. And then 1 have two more questions.
8
How nuny -- 11m sorry?
9
MR. GREECllER:
Go ahead.
10
f'.S. 51'.11'11:
1 thought you were going to jump
11 at me.
12
MR. GREECHER:
No, no, no.
I'rn sorry.
13
MS. SIUTH:
It's a good thing it's a big
14 table.
15 B'l MS. SMITH:
18
MR. GREECHER:
Let me
,
~ -:\
~
I
I
,
16
Q Did Ms. Musso have lawsuits against any other
17
agencies or attorneys besides CRA and the Seiders?
19
THE \'/ITNESS:
I think the record should show
23
~]R. GREECHER:
I'm sorry.
Did you get that?
20 that you were laughing when you made that last comment
21 to my client -- to my attorney, excuse me.
19
22
~]S. SMITH:
Oh, I'm sorry.
24 Was that on the record about coming across the table?
....,,)
25
MS. HOY: 'leoS.
--.J
;
':'\
19
2
3
~
,-
"
6
7
8
9
10
11
I 12
[ 13
~ 14
I' 15
I
" 16
i
i: 17
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...,) 25
1-- ---
1
!<il(. GI<I:C-':lILI<:
\':<:J1, :;tl'il;(: tl1"t from the
record, y":;.
I\nel [ don't I; no'..: , ",; phr,,,'C'd, I'm CJoinCJ to
obje.c;t. to thdt qU(.[;t.ion ,lnll ilL;): ll(~r not to <lnn'dOt".
monn if it hilS to tic witll dirt she rC!lrc:;cnt Ms. Musso i~
any other cases brollght against Gomebody in
Pennsylvania --
MS. SMITH: Okay.
MR. GREECHER:
then I wouldn't object to
that but I mean just in general if Ms. Musso ever had
any other case against anylJody anywhere, I don't think
that that has anything to do with what we're here for.
I'n sorry. Go ahead.
9,1/
I
.
BY MS. SMITH: i
,
,
Q Do you currently have any cases against CRA
that you have yet to file suit on?
MR. GREECHER:
I don't think she can answer
that question because I don't know the answer and I'm
presuming an answer by this objection because I mean,
first of all, on relevance, if she has anything and
hasn't done anything about it, then it's not relevant.
And further if she has something and has been
evaluating it, it's probably privileged so she can't
answer that question.
MS. SflITlI:
But she's going to continue her
;;
, ,
I't
.
I
~i:.,..-
.'.,
c,'
l-S,
I
,
19
.,-,,-
2
3
4
,-
"
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i
; 17
I
I
~. 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.....,.,.,1 25
r-----------
I
.--..-..----.--....---.---.-
9')
1
p,1ttern of conuuct ilnd usually ,;II<J tell:; our dttorncy in
Connpcticut, 011, I've> tHO nOI'p on YOlll' client.
r'lR. CHEECIIF:I~: Hell, 1 ml?iln --
I.IS. SHITII:
So thdt I:;j 1 ike her ~;tl1nuarr..l
practice so I'm assuming since slle can tell the dttorney
in Connecticut, slle might be able to tell us and that
would show thot she's continuing with this pattern of
sending these la,lsuits into the state through Haney
Marino or the sheriff's office.
MR. GREECHER: Well--
MS. SMITH:
I mean usually she does indicate
that because he'll call us up and say, there's more
coming or something to that effect.
MR. GREECHER:
~lell, I mean
THE WITHESS: only when they are filed, ma'am.
r~s. SMITH:
I'm sorry? I'm sorry?
THE WITNESS: Not before.
MS. SMITH:
okay. Again that's never been
clarified to me.
THE WITNESS: And they are filed to see if I
can avoid doing service. And if you insist on me doing
service, I have to do service.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Did you ever run a Dunn & Bradstreet credit
check on CRA?
^ No.
Q Li id
~c.iders?
^ No.
Q Did
Seiders?
19
1
/.
J
,1
5
G
7
A
8
Q
9 Seiders?
10
A
YOll ('VI'I. nln ilny cl-pdit t'lll".("k:. on HI". lIi'P
you over rlln any credit checks Dr Mr. Chbd
No.
Did you ever rlln any credit checks on Denise
I got a truncated short form report from Dunn
11 & Bradstreet which is not a credit check for
12 information.
13
Q
That Dunn & Bradstreet report, did that
14 contain information about Denise Seiders?
15
A
16
Q
It contained her name.
Her name.
17 Did it contain any other information about
18 CRA?
19
A
20
Q
Yes.
What type of information. I'm not familiar
21 with a truncated D & B.
22
A
i
I
I
:. )
.. '1'.:-"
23
24
25
Well, your client has a copy.
Q
My client has a copy?
A
'les.
Q
Why did you do that?
9G
J
1
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i 23
,
,
~ 24
ilj 25
.
I
I
<)~
- I
A H iCJht.
Q r ~~dJd \Vh)' did you nbtilin that report?
NIL GIU;EClIEH:
Objection.
H(~levdnc'~ .
~( ,
j'
it!
But go ahcad and answer.
The question was why did YOII obtain the
"
repol"t.
THE IHTNESS:
To nuke sure I had the right
person, defcndant.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Did you ever contact the pennsylvania
corporation Bureau?
A No.
Q So is that the only place you obtained
information about CRA?
A 'les.
Q I'm not going to tell you any more.
In the --
A No, I have to change that answer.
I received licensing information from the
connecticut Banking Department.
MR. GREECHER: On CRA.
MS. SMITH: Oh, okay.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q How many Attorney General's complaints have
I
\, 19 1
~
i("\ 2
r
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-----_.,- -._."~-'------ - -----,--._-- -_.--.._-- ._- ,.-<,.- -..
----------::-:-l
98 I
you filed aCJain::t CHA v:it.h t.ho lJopart.l1ent 01 UanJdnq'?
\
I
l'
.'
t.,
:,;
I~
Or, f!;":CU:~(' 11(", nn,
(Jtln!~!~ it 'InJll1 d not bo tile
Attorney Gonerill, tho lJcpdrtnent ot Banking.
HO'I' 11ldny COI~lpl~,illtG hi.lve you t ,ilod ilgainst eRA
with the Department 01 "<Inking in connecticut?
MH. GREECHER:
You con nnswer ttlC question,
Joanne, but this is again, the question they're asking
you about information that should be available to them.
THE \HTNESS:
You're asking no wl\en I stopped
beating my ~Iifo.
BY MS. SllITH:
Q
No.
I \,:as asking --
CHAD SEIDERS: What did she say?
MR. GREECHER: Just go ahead and ask the next
question.
I mean ask your question again I think.
MS. SIUTH:
Okay.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q How many complaints have you filed against CR~
with the Department of Banking in connecticut?
A None.
Q How many have your clients filed?
A None.
'I
,
Q
Well, how many complaints did you file with
the Department of Banking against Mr. Rosen?
J
, 19
,f'
,
I
\
\
'20
,
\
I
L
l
r
i ,~,.)
, -
,
I
I
I
I
.._____.4__-...____.._
l
I
1
A
flunt' .
2
Q 1101, J'l"ny
cOr'!d,dnt" did yo"r client~; lile witt!
3
the Depurtnent 01
lIiln~,ln<j in connecticut lIitl1 r1r. Rosen?
4
^ Ilun".
5
Q
Dill you (~Vel' I iic qllY l..:u('lr,l,Ji-nt:,j ."ith the
6 Attorney General in the :itdtC o[ Pennsylvania regarding
7 Capital Recovery?
8
A
110.
9
Q
Did you cvcr tile any Attorney General
10 complaints regarding Mr. Hap Seiders at the state of
11 pennsylvania?
12
A
No.
13
Q
Mr. Chad Seiders?
14
A
No.
15
Q
Denise seiders?
16
A
No.
17
Q
Larry Rosen?
18
A
No.
19
Q
Ms. Faulkner, what state is Capital Recovery
20 located in for the record?
21
MR. GREECllER:
'lou mean where its office is?
22
MS. SMITH:
'les. Where its office is.
23
THE loJITNESS:
It's licensed in Connecticut.
24
It has an office in Pennsylvania.
25
BY MS. SMITH:
r----
I
I Q
I
2 II
I
J I
- ----- ---------------"l
100 I
AntJ 1;.'IH.!r(~ t100!i Hr. Hap :;(~iderH reside?
1 have no idoa.
Actually he l1luY have told 11(' that in his
.1 llepo~j i tion but T fOr<J(.t.
,-
:.>
11S. :;r.Il'l'll:
CoulJ we go off the record for u
6 ninute?
7 (A discussion was held off the record.)
8 B'l r1S. SMITH:
9
Q
Ms. Faulkner, do you know where Mr. Chad
10 Seiders resides?
11 A Once again they may have told me that in a
12 deposition but I don't recall.
)
13
Q
Do you know what state Larry Rosen practices
14 law in?
15
A
I know he practices law in Pennsylvania.
16 And engages in unauthorized practice in
17 Connecticut.
18
MS. SMITH:
I'm going to object to that
19
commentary.
I'll object to that commentary.
20 BY r1S. Sr1ITH:
21
Q
Actually, Joanne, on Mr. Rosen, there was a
~ !
(
22 complaint which we submitted in discovery filed by
23
Loretta Broadway.
~ <
24
Is Loretta Broadway one of your clients?
!,j
I
I
I
1
!
25
A
Yes.
"
I.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
;
,
, 21
l
l
i 22
I 23
I
I 24
i,,~j
! 25
i
!
i
i
101
Q And the Department of Banking indicated that
he was properly licensed under CRA and there was no
problem.
I didn't know if you're aware of that.
11R. GREECIIER:
I object.
MS. SMITH: That goes to her comment.
HR. GREECHER:
And I just object to your
testifying.
I1S. SI1ITH:
okay.
I apologize. She made the
comment and I didn't know if she knew that information
or not.
MR. GREECHER:
Just try not to, okay?
MS. SMITH:
Okay.
BY MS. SMITH:
Q Well, then outside of everything you're going
to object to, I guess I'll just ask in your opinion arc
any of your clients criminals under the connecticut
statutes?
MR. GREECHER:
Objection.
Don't ansvler.
Relevance.
MS. SMITH: okay.
well, then that's all I
have.
MR. GREECHER:
since we have a record here I'm
going to ask a few follow-ups.
MS. SMITH: Okay.
Actually let me clarity
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
that. That's all I have for now.
I just V/ant to
reserVB ny right to rccall hcr when certain docunentB
come to liCjht.
In fact, one of then might be the
deposition of Mr. SllilW which we referred to earlier and
I would still like the phone records and the other
information.
MR. GREECllER:
\ve can --
11S. SMITH:
I just want to make sure that's on
the record.
MR. GREECHER:
Off the record.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
EXAMINATION
BY MR. GREECHER:
Q Ms. Faulkner, just some follow-ups here. I
think a lot of this has been covered but just so the
record is clear on jurisdiction I wanted to discuss some
matters.
Where do you practice laV/?
A In Connecticut.
Q And where do you pay taxes?
A In Connecticut.
Q Where do you vote?
A Connecticut.
Q Do you own any real property outside of
Connecticut?
I
. I
, I
)
!
I
)
I
I
f
I.~,,)
I
IO,j'l
i\ No.
\
2
Q
Have you ever resided in th(~ Stilt" of
3 Pennsylvania?
<I
11
No.
5
Q
Hdvc you ever voted in the Stat" o[
G Pennsylvania?
7
11 No.
8
Q Have you practiced law in the State 01
9
Pennsylvania?
10
A No.
11
Q Have you ever owned any property in
12 Pennsylvania?
13
A
No.
14
Q
Have you ever listed yourself in any
15 Pennsylvania phone directories?
16
A
No.
17
Q
Have you ever advertised in the state of
18 Pennsylvania?
19
A
No.
20
Q
Have you ever maintained an office in
21 Pennsylvania?
22
A
No.
23
Q Have you ever had any employees, anybody
24
employed by you, located in Pennsylvania?
25
A No.
..,_I
f
I
.
120 ]
l ""-"'-
I ; 2
I
f 3
r
f
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Or carrying Ollt activities in Ponnsylvania?
A No.
Q In the course of your practice of law have you
over had a case in which you represented ~l client in a
Pennsylvania state or Federal Court?
A No.
Q In the course of your legal practice have you
ever appeared personally in any legal proceeding in
Pennsylvania?
A No.
Q Whether that was a hearing, a trial, a
deposition?
A No.
Q In the course of your practice of law have yo~
ever been licensed to practice in Pennsylvania?
A
No.
]04
. ,
"
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
~
"
'i'
~ I
r!
I
(
~.,
Q To your recollection have you ever represented
a Pennsylvania resident?
A No.
Q Have you ever had a bank account in
Pennsylvania?
A No.
Q Mailing address in Pennsylvania?
A No.
Q Now the cases that were mentioned earlier,
.~
-- ----------------------1
105
r
1
there WCl"C six or ~.even entities or individllalG cnCJilCJcd
-',
..
2
in thr.' collection "CJC'ncy bll,;illl''''' tilde I",d 01 (iceu in
3 l}cnn~.ylvdni~.
,1
(rho ca~;p~i invoJvinq thoDe ent itles, ""horo \./oro
'"
"
5
they filed?
,
~' ,
G
A In Connecticut.
I ,
r
'.
'.'
7
Q And the activities that gave rise to those
8
cases, where did they occur?
f
9
A In Connecticut.
f'
10
Q
And the people you represented in those cases,
11 where did they reside?
12
A
Connecticut.
I
13
Q
In the course of your practice, ma'am, have
15
called into Court or hailed into Court in the
'\
.
I I
I'
I
I,
r,
I'
14
you ever done anything that caused you to expect to be
16
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
17
A
No.
18
MS. SMITH: That I have to object to.
i
I
I
r
I
~
19
MR. GREECHER: That's fine.
20
MS. SMITH: Okay.
21
BY MR. GREECHER:
I
~I
r "
22
Q
In the Musso and Chamberlin cases I just have
l'
23
a couple of questions on those.
-I',',
["
24 \vhat did those cases involve, the cases that
25 you brought in Musso and Chamberlin?
,-----
1
II
TilL'" involvC'd dcLiLJn~i in L1ll' ~jtdt.l' ul
-~
"
2
Conne~:ticllt '~:jth n.-'<Jdr-d to C(jnrl(~c:tic:ut n':;idcnt~; in
3 violation oi connecticut anJ Federal Law.
4
Q
~ discussed r'll-. Soidor':"-;' involvement there ~:;o lc.t J:H? jllnt.
1
6 move ~head.
7
And j n tho~c Cd~e~i I th ird~ YOll d 1 r~dd y
In those cases, in Musso and in Chamberlin,
8 did you ever travel to Pennsylvania in those cases?
9
A
10
Q
11 cases?
12
A
13
>
No.
Appear in any Court in pennsylvania in those
No.
(Hap Seiders leaves the room.)
14 BY MR. GREECHER:
15
Q
Appear in any capacity in Pennsylvania with
16 respect to those cases?
17
A
18
Q
No.
Now the cases involving Mr. Hap Seiders
19 involving your client Musso and your client Chamberlin,
20 where were they filed?
21
A
22
Q
23
A
24
Q
25
A
Connecticut.
Each of them?
Yes.
And what Court in Connecticut?
Federal District Court in Connecticut.
106
-\
1
1
You nay have answered this and 1 apologize it
Q
2 I'm going back ovC'r sonn ~rnllnd tllat wan alrnady plowed,
3 did you have correspondence directed [rom you to
4
5
6
-;
pennsylvanid in
A No.
thu~(,.. Cd~;(~:;;l
(Hap Soiders cntcrs tile room.)
11S. SrHTH:
Now woit. Whut cases are you
8 talking about?
9
10
MR. GREECHER: Musso and Chamberlin.
MS. SrlITH:
I don't remember if she testified
11 whether or not they were demand letter cases or not.
12
I'm not sure either.
MR. GREECHER:
13 BY MR. GREECHER:
14
'lour testimony will speak for itself, but if
Q
15 you recall, do you recall if you sent a demand letter in
16 Musso',
17
18
19
I did not.
How about in Chamberlin?
I did not.
A
Q
A
20 (Hap Seiders leaves the room.)
21 BY MR. GREECHER:
22 Q Do you recall if you made any phone calls to
23 Pennsylvania regarding either the Musso case or the
24 Chamberlin case?
",,-,J
A
I did not.
25
1 07
~
1
?
J
4
.'
.,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"t.,)
'I . 25
I'
'I
i'
I!
,
j:i
109
^ 'lo::.
o I n I~l1:;:.-;(l '.dlolt ',,'.t~; the! rp:;ul t ul thilt Cdse?
^ I)Qrt ot thp C;lf;0 was uottlecl ns to eRA and
lJC'nise.
-.'
,
The rOE. t 01 LIIL: L:llSe '....aB set tied u month ago
J
,
~
i
r
'.
::'
and the defendants have: attempted to breach their
settlement agreement.
MS. SIUTH:
I I\avo to object to that.
ActUally --
MR. GREECHER:
No.
'lou --
MS. SMITH:
Viell, she
11R. GREECHER:
Vihat's the basis of your
objection? 'lou can't argue the facts.
You got to just
say --
MS. SllITH:
I
,
It wasn't completely settled.
eRA
never settled or Hap Seiders and Chad Seiders never
settled. She just said they did and they breached
I
I
I
but --
MR. GREECHER:
Viell, that's a factual
.
)
.~
,
argument.
MS. SMITll: Okay.
Viell, I object to that.
.
"
~.
" I
,
MR. GREECHER:
Note an objection.
:'1'
i;i
I:"~ ,
MS. SMITH:
\vell, I object to that so we'll
i'j.
li--
- ,
Ii
, I
I,
j;
~ ,I
argue about it.
BY 11R. GREECHER:
,_h
1
1
Q
,-....
110
.Just UO tlH..! rCl.:ord i:~ \'''It'dr I the !,lu:;:iQ Ci.t:JU l,t
/.
OIlP point t lH!lif~v(o YOll indjcdtf'd '.\',,~; ~;i't',tlpd on ))(dldll
3 ot lIap :;0 ider,,-,
4
A
5 1 oS~.j('!:"j.
6
7
Yo::;. And 1 t.hinl: 11(' ',/<1[; tl",'lnq to cut hin
If,S. t;NI'l'H:
ilo'." ] object.
1 object to that.
That's not the case.
.
.
8
9
11R. GREECIIER:
Ill] right.
MS. SI1ITH:
Go ahead.
I'm just saying.
10 BY MR. GREECHER:
11
Q
And can you tell us how that settlement on
12 behalf of Hap that you just referenced, Hap Seiders you
)
13
just referenced, was reached?
14
A
15
Q
16
A
It was reached with his Connecticut attorney.
And what were the terms of that settlement?
Mister
The two Seiders would pay, I forget,
17 and agreement to an injunction against violating the
18 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
19
Q
20
A
21
Q
Now who was going to pay?
The insurance company I guess.
i
~ )
!
In any of the cases, like in Musso when that
22 case was settled, did you receive any payment directly
23
from Mr. Hap Seiders?
I
,,-
r-
24
A
25
Q
No.
In Chamberlin were you anticipating receiving
1
1
,-----------
I ,IllY 1,<IYIi,elll.
I
11'UI~1 i'll', Blip S(,~id0rs, uirut..:tLy from Hr. Hap
lIll
I
2 ~; p i d l~ r:; '?
3
^
1 did not 1'"Cl.! i V(. i\ ny p"YI:\ent f ron 111-. lIap
4 f;oidel.l.~ in ChlllillJel"j in.
!j
Q
And I1<tVu yuu L:\/t.:J .t"~L.:L:ivt.:d I..l vi.tym~nt in il cuse
2
6 directly rron ~lr. lIup Seider,;?
7
"
No.
8
Q
Or on his uccount, on his personal account?
9 Did you evcr rcceive payment on any case from
10 an account of Mr. Hap Seiders individually?
11
^
No.
12
Q
Ms. Faulkner, have you ever acted to cause
13 harm to anyone in Pennsylvania?
14
A
No.
15
MS. Sf1ITH:
I object to that.
16
It's a conclusion of law.
1
17 BY MR. GREECHER:
IB
Q
And regarding the f1usso and Chamberlin cases,
19 what was your purpose in bringing those cases?
20
A
To protect my Connecticut clients from
21 unlawful collection activity.
22
MS. SMITH:
I object to that.
:!
23
Conclusion of law.
It's never been determinec
'.
,
24 whether they've ever violated any laws in Connecticut.
25 BY MR. GREECHER:
2
!
~
I
I
i
,
j
i
~
I
I
I
I
i
It;
, .
r
1
()
I\:~ you udid/ YOU1f'(' prutl~ctilHJ YOUI"
? Connc!ct.icut cJient~; to)- '/iol.'ltion:; OCCUrJ-infJ ~'/l1crp;'
3
1\
In ConnccticlIt.
11~ l
I
I:
~
I
4
:-IS. ~:'IITII: OIJjf.'ctinCj dCJdin to th0 le'lIll
!)
conclu~~ion:j 1',Jldt dny \/irjldtiun:.; e'o'er occl1J:rnc1.
~'
,.
~
l'
I
I
i
,
i
I
.
.
%
,
"
~I
!
"
J
,
I
fl.,
..,.
6
B'l mL GREECflEH:
7
Q
I want YOlI to put ~sidQ service of any
8
pleadings for a mOlaent.
Tl\is yucstion dOBsn't refer to
9
service and I don't want to get into arguing about how
10 complaints were served and so on and so forth.
11 So putting service totally out of this
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question did YOll ever address any letters or phone calle
to Perry County, Pennsylvania?
A Not that I know of.
Q Other than with respect to the lawsuit that
we're engaged in now that Mr. Seiders has brought
against you and other than any communications to CRA, if
any, or to Mr. Seiders himself, if any, have you had any
communications with anyone in Pennsylvania about Hap
Seiders?
A No.
Q Now you mentioned a Mr. Mark Bradshaw. That
was mentioned earlier in the testimony?
A 'les.
Q Can you tell us again what case you had
1--------
I
I
2
1
Contl'l't
2
I,
--,
11 J
~.: it. Ii l.~ I'
llJ'"d:itlit\.; dlJOut
nldt
'..:d:. Cll(' Chdl'~iJpJ'l in
n d t t (' ro . .'; () t II d t
'''''flU 1 d
3 il<lv(' 1>"'.'1\ f,I'I-tloll"; Indil-('ctly "bOllt 11,,1" S(dden;.
.1
Q
!j
I,
6
Q
7 you I: no','.' ?
8
^
9
Q
And in ',.;h..J.t cdpdcity ".:a:..i j.jr. Urt:l(.l~;ha'd ilctinq;'
fl!' tlk dttornuy [0'" tile uel cnd"nt.".
And where docs Mr. Br~dsh~w pr~ctice ~s far as
Pcnn:;y 1 vo.1nla.
Othcr than your conmunic~tion witl\ Mr.
10 Bradshaw rclilted to the Chanberlin litigation do you
11 recall any other communications that you directed to
12 Pennsylvania conccrning Mr. Seiders?
13
A
14
Q
15
A
16
around.
17
18 have.
19
20
l-Io.
Are you still there?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I was getting up and walking
It doesn't do any good.
MR. GREECHER:
That's all the questions I
MS. SMITH:
Could I ask one last question?
MR. GREECHER:
Sure.
Go ahead.
21 EXAMINATION
22 BY MS. SMITH:
23
Q
24
,.,J
25
against Capit.al Recovery.
Ms. Faulkner, just one last question.
(
;'
Since Musso you filed a series of other cases
,
I
I
,
I
i
!
I
I
it;
I
1;
~
2
r
I
I
I
I
\'111,. did yuu not ::lIe :'11". lid!' :;"ld"!',, !,el"!:onillly
II'
,
,
,j
,
~
\
~
,
.'.
~
" ,
, ,
I
~
, i
"
-----
?
ill tlio:a.
l;,I:i{-':;';'
J
1,j/(, GI<EECIIU<,:
1 (tun I t J:no',: 1l0'i: t h~1 t I ;:;
'1 r0]ovilnt to '..:h0t.IH'lo ttjf'!"'-":i 11lrJ:',dlt,tinn uVt.'l' t-t:;.
" r'i1uJI:ner in Penm'ylv,lniil.
6 And I \'lOuJd object to it even bcinq relevant
7 under the underlying litigiltion.
8
11S. SrlITII: \'011, '..:e're :3ayinCj that she sued
9 him for purposes other than IcgitiDate and it's curious
10 as to why she doesn't continue to sue hin but she
11 continues to sue CRA.
12 She used to include him and now she doesn't.
13 And perhaps during discovery she realized that he wasn't
14 the correct party.
15
MR. GREECHER:
I mean this is
16
MS. SMITH: All right.
17
So I mean I just wondered what her reasons
18
were for not including him in the current cases.
19
MR. GREECHER:
Well, I don't know that
20
MS. SMITH: All right.
21
11R. GREECHER:
I mean it's not relevant to
22
this action and it's certainly not relevant to any
23
juriSdiction or venue issues.
24
MS. SMITH: Well, okay.
Fine.
I'll withdraw
25
the question.
I
,
I
I
2 J I
,
. I
!
3
,I
~)
G
"I
8
9
10
11
12
IJ
14
15
16
17
.
; 18
f 19
I
,
\ 20
! 21
I 22
r 23
!
i 24
t .~~ 25
t .
f
,
lIS
'.:11 '1'1' ,Ifllll',
1,1J!. ,; I< i:I: (' III: I< :
,\ 1 I I I tIll t .
I'll,11 ':; .1 11, ,Joo1nn().
..,'
,'l,}.
:;;':1 'I'll:
Of J tlH' r,,'\'urd.
(l~ dj:;l:lI~;:;iun '..:,,:~ Ilt'l,l illl tIlL' rt'l'(ll"d.)
1,1:;. :;1,11'1'11:
Gu dllt'dd un 1'h..., f"I'l'lJt"d.
I I-ece i ve:c1 a f ,1;: 11'0'.' !lull GlI(IIT i 11 i, I don't
rCi.lCr.1b0r the dato, (., f(.,,-J Ll(\,/~; drJO ~~tatinrJ that Joanne
\'10[; qoinCJ to tl'y to enfol'ce " ,;ettlenl'nt MJdinst Hap and
Chad.
So I, 01' course, called hin up and said, .....hat
settlement, we didn't know anything about a settlement.
At which tine then Don Guerrini said that he
had gone ahead and settled the balance of the Musso case
and we had no knowledge of it until I received the fax,
which is probably two or three days old.
I can send you
a copy of it.
And it was basically a letter that she was
appalled that we were reneging on it.
I think appalled
was the word she used. And I was stunned and of course
then called Connecticut counsel and screamed a little
bit.
MR. GREECHER: Okay.
MS. SMITH:
But just to clarify that's how we
discovered about the settlement.
It was only a few days
ago and I can send you a letter to verify the same.
MR. GREECHER: Okay.
3
"",i
r
I
1 I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
llntil that ca:o" bacl;.
:;u thdL I~;
r., H. (;I~ L LCII J: Ii:
Arc! you
11S. :.ii.~ I TII:
And that's a di,;putc we're having
Hith (Jur llt.tonley in ('()nn(.(;tiL~ut but. 1 don't. ',)dnt her
call inq 1!18 a 1 i at. l.Jec.:tl\l:~e T can :-~ond YOll il I;'Opy 01 \'that
I received.
rHL CRF:I'CHF.R:
T thinl: \'Ihat: it_ is, I
:10.
don't think that's what was --
MS. SMITH: And I'n certainly not practicing
law in Connecticut. I just receive infornatlon from Don
Guerrini.
I mean I don't file documents.
MR. GREECIIER:
O,;i:lY.
Let's --
MS. SI1ITH:
If that's what she said.
I'm
assuming that's what she was saying.
MR. GREECHER:
Why don't we conclude at this
point.
MS. SrU'I'H:
All right.
(Witness excused.)
(Whereupon, the Deposition was concluded
at 1:13 p.m.)
* * *
ll7
3 I
2
:J
.
'.
~
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-'''~) 25
Upon :; I ql1: tlll li,.j fj',,' I ,tttl'!.t t IH" te:~ti l"lOny
hore.in i!~ truo "nil (~urno(.t .1:: fJI'.'I'fi 1),/ ;~H' ....'ith .-1ny
corrc~t ionn noLed <I:; pel" the l'rl-dtd :;h('et.
,JOMIiI/: l'idJLKtIEH
DATE
Yo: **
CEHTlFICATI::
I hereby certify th~t J ~as present upon the
above entitled matter and there reported in stenotype
the proceedings that took place on February 19, 1999;
and further certify that the foregoing are fully and
accurately indicated in my notes, and that this is a
true and correct transcript of same to the best of my
ability.
* * *
) 1, -l
)
"
I
,
,
,
,!
,
,
.
I
,
'I
,
'-
.
J
.
'.
"
,
j
!
:i
r
I
I
"
,
',-
/
,
:~
:~ 4
I;
I
" --"",J
, '
I
't
"
,
i
i
'f
j
;, Pl\(;t: LI!:l
J
4
,-
~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 ]')
i:1<lUIl'/\ :;J1Li:T
('(1)'I(l'r' I I nn
_-.-J
-.....-...- -'
~
"",-
.
\QC\
UlfITt:D 1J1'A'l'I'.ll Olll'l'llIC'1' COURT
DISTRICT OF COIIIIFC'l'ICU'I'
______... ___.. ....___ ___________________)C
, p. '0/1
lOll ,.
- I. ..,
.
i 'I ')
....I. ~ ,.
.>.; j" 'S~
'Cl
Ii'
~.
:l
rt
~
....
III
".
DURDrn.: /<<IRPf{Y,
I'lafntHt.
-aqatnst-
EQUII'AX CllXCK DRnVlCES, INC.,
,.1.' ;','.'
. -',
No. !.9'CV2.10(G&Gq~.tl)
91'WOl! wr
. )
~'
Detendlllut.
--________________________.________x
"
~ f P BAR A II C B &.
For ~he ~laintift:
,
;.
Joanne G. Faulkn."... Esq.
~23 Avon Street
New HavAn, Connncticut 06511
70r ~hA Defendant:
"
David I.. Hartsell, t:oq.
Xilpa~iak StocktOn LLP
~~oo Peachtroe Gtr~ct
A~lanta. Georgia 30309
~llltricia J. ~nella, E~qo
Robinson , Cole LLP
Z80 TrumbU11 street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
G 0 ~ T TEL, District 3a4gc:
Plaintiff, Deirdre' Kurphy, bringa thiG action under the
Fair Debt Collection Pr~cticeG Act, 15 U.s.C. 55 169~, vi: sea.,
..l
,
)
';
;
.
I We are unsure of the correct spelling of pla.intiff's
nalOa. Plaintiff'" coun....l spelled plaintiff's nama as "Deird1:e"
in thoe original oDlDPlaint, I:lut ill>> "Dierdre" in the amendad
IlOlIplaint. Pllllintiff'. ..iqnllt;uro on hor anSWGrs to
interrogatories appear" to RIlOll her firBt; nalllA "l)eidro." We
hava usGd the spelling in the original oomplaint.
1
'j
I
,
\
I
I
,
.
\
.
'.
~ I
,
(
I;
it ..
u
EXHIBIT
Ph,rJj'.(4:s A
J~I-/# ,";I/I"I{qq
,-
[,\
k,
-"
Ii
'.
~ :'
. \
!
I
I'
\,
'.;1
1,
'I,
1'\'
,t!
I
("fIlCrA"),1 I'or defendant, ~u.i.1';t)( Check !lervlcllr:, fne.'1I ulJegcd
vlolat.lon or Ole rocI''' in oonnQctlon wilh written c;ol1UllunlcC1I..l.onll
!lent to hor in it" ottorts to cnllllct a con!lUlIur dObt' ofolod by
hlU' to lho e^,' !itorQ5, a cJothin'J rClllllor. D'~1'ondt111t lIoe.. not
aoknawlnll9''' th14t it vin] "t..d tho FOCI''' but, rncOl]/lizil'(J that: thA
cost,., ot litiqation would tar exceed tllO IllIXUlUIll IItatutory
damaqn tblll: plaintiff could recover,' dQtllndant ha.. offered to
settlQ plaintit~'D claims for $1,000 ~lUG "all roasonablll files
and COG to as d.t-rmincd hy the Court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1692k(a)(J).H' Defendant rllalizod that it cannot prevail in an
actinn at tlliB ROrt. If it tJlk".. the caso to trial and obtains a
jury verdiot Car: this defllndant clid recently In n aiml.l..x suit
brought by pl,,!ntiff's attorney), it will hav~ expended far more
.
.'
,.
-...-.-
k
(I).
' '
,
,
\
.
i
v
I
i
t )
, plaintiff's original oOlllplaint containQrl a !lAcend count
undar Connooticut's Unfair Trade Practiccn Act, Conn. Gen. stat.
Ann. SS 42-nOa-q, ("CUTPA"), as to whl.oh. this Court (Navas, J.)
granted SUlIII\\ary jud'illllent in favor of defendant. Ruling on
Defllndant's Kotion for summary JUdqment, dated ~uq. 24. 1998.
, Tho "debt" WllG Il1l C1tt.llmpt by defeIldant Eq1.Iit"ax on
eubroqation to recover the sums it paid to the GAP Stores for
guarantosing a bad check given by plaintiff to the ntora, plUS
costs.
, Thll l'DCPA provides that "any debt collector Who fails to
comply wi1:b any pl:"ovision of this subchapter" may be liable in
ciVil dal1gQ" to uny S\\ch person in an iIlIlOunt equal "to the SIIlll
of: "/lny aotual damll<Jes sustained by such person as a result of
such failure;" "in the case of any aation by an incUvi.dual, suoh
additional dalllagot: as 1:be court: lllay allow, but not exoeeding
$1,000;" and "in the case of any successful action to enfore. the
foregoinq liability, thG coat.. of tbe action, together with a
raalJonable attorney' a fee AS determined by the oourt." III U.S.C.
5 I692k(a) (1). (2)(A), (3). Plaintiff has not alleged anyaotual
damages in tltis cnse.
5 Llltter from dafendant's ooun"..1, David to. Hartsell, to
plaintiff'll cOlIDsel, Joanno n. FaulJc1'1or, dated October 6, 1998.
.
\
~
,
L
, '
, ~
2
,
I>. ',-'
r "
.".""".,uU
--"',
in It" own at.torney'r. tee, thlln it wu posulbly Habln t'or Ilnder
i~D llllugation~ ot tha oOllplaint.
PJlllntUt, thrOu\lh her IIttorney.' r..,1C'lctca thill ottor,
ar.cusin'1 defondant of 'IIlIK1n'.l thi~ off(lT nil 1\ pl.oy to avoid h...
diocovnry rO<jUestll and Insistinq instoad on .. lUIDp nUm Offer that
would include hur attorney's rona.
nefendant haa now 1I0ved to diGlliaG plaintiff'.. c1&.illl tor
lno~ of nuojact mattor jurisdiction, Dcfnndnnt contends thut,
because its offor 1s nqulvalent to thn to~al remaining rolie!
available to plaintiff, there 111 no lon90r an Ilctunl cllse or
controvcrny, a oon~titutionlll prerequisite to thlll Court's
jurisdiction. Wo oqrCQ and grant the dnfandant.'s motion to
dismiSG. We retain jurisdiction of thia clloe, hoWcver, to
C1oto~ne the amount of reasonable feo~ and costs to be awarded
plaintiff'S oounsol.
IlUmIlW.ml
Artiole III of the unitea statQS constitution limits the
jUdicial authority ot tho federal oourts to Rease,,- and
"Contl:overllics.R O.S.;const. art. :ur. 5 2. BGcauGe of this
constitutional limitation on judic1D.l power, a federal court
lacks subject .atter jurbdicrt:ion over an acrt:ion unless it
pr...ents an actual calla or controversy. B. .Jaokcon , Son. In" L
v. ~Orr8e. SUqar & Coooa Exohanoe. tnc., 24 F.Jd 427, 431 (3d
',,"!IlIJ
· We Clo not know whether this offer _s SVar' COWIlunlcatel1
to plaintiff by hor attorney. The unusual (and qUetJt10nable)
>;ulainer "gre..ment in this aMla gives plaintirt's aounGel the
Gole authority to decide whether to accept II settl_ent otfer. _
For pUrpollGS of thiG 110tio1'1, howevOJ;', that lllatter is uniJllllortan~
:I Y;.l:( C\.-\.tJ)}'[)t,\ LD1okH^OC\ \
\/i)1..l. c\ \(1-- nvl ~~l\\ Vhu"Y'P.t\ \
{i;-;'),'A f I>. la 1))':)1.)\\5 '7 )
\\ ~s \\(\~'f > 1\ c., :,o.s,.\J"D'
--Y;;::, f)Y,^ ','''' ,0 {~ .
.:,' -"-
air. 1994) (nltd~Jo"n o~itted). "^ rader"1 court may only be
('..tIled upon 'to ad1udq. the lAq.,l right,; of litigants in IIctullL
controvor"lo~.'. ~ (cltlnq ~1Y.~p~,J[WL~hl1~elph~~ 8.S.
po. Y. r."D~~ru!loJ1~.~ EmiarfttlQO. 113 U.S. :13, 3~ (186~)).
Whnnwver it appear" that LbQ cOurt lacks nubjcot slIt.ter
juriudiction, tllO court lI1UlIt dlsllIJl'ls lho action. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(11) (3).
Tharo 1_ no quastion that plalntJtr'o compll\1nt inili~lly
satisfied the cnsc-or-controVerAY requirement ot Article IXI.
nafendant oould not .imply dotault on the pleadings (which would
hav.. erOl1tad the r..~ult dofendant no.., saeks), sinoe t,h.. originlll
complaint contained II atnto-oourt claim sORking punItive danaqea.
The stlltl oll1i.. was dislIlissed by Judgo Nevas on defendant'"
motion for _w:unary jUd<Jll1"nt. 7
The conetitutiQllal case-or-controvcrsy requirement. however,
PlubsistG throughout the entire ~itigatiDn. Lolli.. v. Cantinental
Bank Corp.. 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). "ArtiCle III denies
~Rd8ral courts the power to dRcide questions that cannot affeot
the rights of litigants in the case before them, and confines
them too l::IUlolving real and substahtilLl controversies admitting of
specific reliet through a decree of a conclusive character. . .
. ~ (internal citations and quQtations omitted). "{l]t is
not enough that a dispute wae voxy Illuch alive when suit 1011'18 filed
. . The parties .ust o"n1:inue to hava a personal stake in the
ou~come of the lawsuit." ~~ &t 417-78 (internal quotations and
1 ~ee note 2, ~.
4
-.,,,.J
'\
oitationo 01l1tt,,<1). Tl\us, tile qunation bwCorl! U:l ill whether
plaintiff, uo1rdro Murphy, hAving been offoro~ thu maximum
rQeovurable r.tatutnry damageo, han an onqoing controversy wi~h
defendant J::qu11'lIx, that in, lihe!:h..", flhn contlnuol> t.o havo a
"pornon"l .U.l<:e in the OUI:COIll. of \:h( ill] 10.w8u11:." /lor only
possible remaining Lnterest would ~I the recovery 01' attorney'u
taea and coat.R, which defendant haG offerc~ to pOly in an amount
to be dal:emined by the court. ,
Tha Bupreae Court hag recentlY rcatflrmnd itG earlier
holdinqs that an "interest In attorney's foea is .
)
inGuftloient to arOi\tc an Articlo ttt caae or controversy loin ere
nOne oxists on the morit,;: of the underlying claim." 5t....1 co.--l!..
.c.1!;i,;e1l8 fOl' a Blltter 1':I1vironlllQl\t, 523 U.S. 83, l1e S. ct. 1003,
1018, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 (1~9B) (citipg Lewis v. Continental Rank
corn., 4~4 U.S. at 490); ~OQ ~.~ pia~ond v. Charles, 476 U.S.
54, 62, 69-70 (19861 (bolding that the party ~ccking judicial
resolution must show that he porKonally has sQff..r~d some actual
or threatened injury as a rellule of the putatively llH\gal
condUct and that an "ward of fe85 against a party that cannot
.fairly be traced ,to th; ..tibsbmtive statute at isaue i.. not
suffioiont for purpoGe~ of Artiole IIX). "The litigation mURt
'Jive the plaintiff some other benefit l:>ellicl.e9 reiJ.bursellent of
0081<10 that arB a byproduot 01' tho liti<jation itself." SJ;~C2..,
118 S. ct. at 10111.'
~
(
~
if,
~
, In Steel co., the statute at issue, the Eme!:'g........y
Planning and cmmunity Right-to-KnOW Act of 1986, 42 U.8.C. S
11001 at 880., provided that:
[ \
5
v
\
"
Act:ordin91y. n\1lllll't'nun circuit oourlfl havo held that Q clah
tor ~ttornoY'G teao doo&; not avprt 1l00tneln nr thc underlying
lIetton on lhe Iller! t...,. IU.d.rtC;Jr.!lQ!l, y........ll.JL..J)rJl.t.. n.L I nt.!',r I or, 982
F.2d 1332, 1339 n.2 ('lth Clr. 1992) (lIo1d1n(} thllt. liability for
teon III not an injury with a neXUA to the .;ubc.tllntivo ebzlraoter
or the ntatute at 1IIau,,); fl::-l....,Y._fl!!..!\Il1.i:.l:. 812 .'.2<1 294. 291 n.1
(4th Clr. 1987) (holding that a clain for attorney'e teQG did not
avurt 1Il00tn....1I of the underWin\l IIction on the lllArltG): .apqby ~
~, 606 p.2d 411, 414 (3d Cir. 19,,/g) (ho1d1n9 t:hat an
attorney's ree alaim did not aCfect tho mootness of the
und~lyin9 substantive clat'll on ...hich the partie,", had reached on
aqreement)i Doa v. M8robnl~. 622 F.2d llB, 119-20 (5th cir. 19DO)
(same), 5lQ~ni"I\. 462 u.s. 1119 (19B3); llillhDn v. cOlll",tttQe
on ProfoQQional Ethic. and conduct, 686 r.2d 12"/0, 1290 (6th cL..
198:1) (hOlding !:bat ~ db.,i....al of an nppeal of tbe underlying
claim on grounds of mootneos was neither preoluded by an award o~
attorney's tees nor did such a dismiusal preClUde un award ot
fees) 1 Dahl<<m v. Board_of 2ducationr 901 F..2d l~OB, 1511 (10th
cir. 1990) (holding that a claim for attornoy's fBA~ does not
prcservll a lIIoot cause of action)..
In eaoh of these oalleS, howeV'llr, there hAd been a QattleUlent
at the unaerlying action. or thlll Gul>st=tive clailll bAd !).co~e
The court . . . lII2l.y aWb.rd costs o~ litigation
(inoluding reasonable nttorn&y and expert vitnR5S tees)
to the prQvailing party or the substantially prevailing
party llIhenevor the court determines such an award is
appropriate. -
42 U.s.c. ~ 11046(f).
6
"""J
IIJUiJ~. l..d.
moot by virtu.. of tho /lction.. of On.. or tho parU"!l or by l!l
....h..ng. Of eirOUllllltanceo. In t,ho instant cao'l. there hllG bnlln nO
~ctu"l ~ettlcmAnt or the plaintiff's ol~im -- only /In at tor to
cottle.
The RGconll circuit hils recoqni?cd th~t whon a dOl'ornd/lnt:
tAnderll all that a plaintil'f could recover if: hia or her claim
vere tully litill'ilted, II justJoiablll oaK" or controversy no 10nger
'lXi.to anel tit. e."" eho\lld be disaisced for lack of r.ubjRct:
_attar juri.Qiction. ~brllmlJ v. Iot-Brco. r~, 719 F.2d Z3 (2<1
eir. J.903). In l\br~. tho second circuit attlrJled U,e district
court's di~innal of an antitrust aotion attor tho defendant
tendered the damages to which ~.h.. plaintiffs would bav" been
entitled had they prevailed on their Sherean Act clai~r. -- treble
damaqes pluD rca~on~ble .ttornOY'6 tags and conts. XhQ
plaintiff$ had r..jcatod the offer in part ba6~d upon tho
unspeoified amount of th.. attorney-.. fees, wbiob they contended
WOUld almost certainly be calcUla1:ed at a fraction Of the amount
reo overed (a rAlativaly .,inor amount) and. theretor.., would not
compenllate their couns"l for tillle obarqes already Illllountinq to
~anty '1:110.,," defendant's settlement offer. Tb.. Seoond cir"llit
found this argument unavailing, noting that tho district co~
WlIS not limited in it:laward of tees to a p<arcnntage of the
recovery. .lll.. at n. The court aloo notQd that there was no
danger that plaintiffS' reoovery on their individual clai~ would
be diluted by th.. paymoont of attot'nllY'S flies, t1inClA thu
defendant's offer incl~ded payment of rDallonablo attornoy's feos.
7
....,J
~lJ"'liIIU,U
-, J:~_.. ..\,. 3J. Thll Court hQld tlll.t tho only interm,t survlvinq II",;
"not that of tho pl.intltCo bu~ or thoi~ attorneyo." 1~. ~he
court noted that, _i n nubstanc~, 10lhilt the de1:onclant.. did by itn
off'..r lias no differ"nt than if' it had Clubmll.:tcd to a dofault
jud911unt on t.hR individual plaintiff..' chilDs. l.IL_ at. 3Z.
OthtU' courts have alGO upheld dismiosals whore the defendant
agreed to givA tho pl31ntift full r~lief. 1n 1i~morman y, bell,
800 F.2d 38&, 390 (4th C~. 1986), a plaintiff. who had fil~
both a shareholder derivative suit and a claso action, appaaled
th.. dimtriot court'a denial of olano oertifioation a~ WAll an its
dismissal of her inaiviaual olaims after the aofen~ants offered
judgment in tha [ull ~aunt sought by plaintiff individually.
The eoure of Appeale affirmod tho denial of clas3 certification.
with r"~ect to th.. dismissal of her individual clalmG, the court
held that "[oJince class ce~lrication had been denied. and
defanda.nt;fo' hlld offerod (plaintiff] the r\111 lIlIlount or damagos . .
. to which she olaitted individually to be entitled, there wa~ no
longer any case or oontroversy. . . . [Her] pet-sonal ..take in too
outOOlllQ had disappeared, and federal courts do no\; &1t si1llP1y t"
l>astClW vindicati'Cln in Ii. vacuum." ',lsl.. at 390 (internal ci'tations
o~ittGd). As to plaintiff'S objection to ~ disais#al on the
ground that the defendants did not. offor attor:neY'3 fees, the
court noted that an individual ahareholder is not. entitlsd to
recovor attorney's fees in !in individ\1al securiti"lI action. 1lL.:
see a]50 Rand v. Monsanto co., 936 F.2d S96, 5~6 (7th C1r. 1991)
(ftonce thll defendant off~u to satisfy the plaintiff'S entiro
8
,~
-...,
..J
14]010/011
demand, thore ia no dispute over which to litigato. . . and a
plaintl~f Who rctuauG to acknowledge thia 10S0H outright, undar
Fed. n. civ. P. 11(b) (1), hocaul'lQ hn haa no rCllIaimn'1 ..tAka.");
ll.!1J.A!1c::tI to Rnd..l!m/rQliI"I,o.lLv,....Qit.Y__tlLf;bJQ!!SSl, 821'1 1'. Zd 8n, 678
(7th Ch'-. U87) (h()Id.1JJI] thllt 1\ plaintiff who js oHnud all ot:
the relict he c1el1li1nd.'l :uy not refulle tho ol:1:or and than qo to
trial); er"ssW'eU-1!.. _.tL:!!dr.m;le.l-~ch.. SQS:UrltIe:s. Int.:., 675 F.
supp. 106 (S.D. N.Y. 1987) (qrllntinq dMf.ndant's motion to diamiss
Vberc c1~fendant t~ldered to plaintiff all of hiG claimed damages
plua pro-judgment interent, the !ull amount the plaint1f! oould
obtain if ho "'ara 1:0 prAVllil on the moritl'J, and rejectinq
plaintiff'S olaim t~t'ha V$S entitlod to a finding of liability
aqainst the defendant).
Aocordingly, \1e hold that, havinq been offered the maximum
alIIount of dnma'1ca ~Ibich .me w"" enl:11:1a<1 to reCOver under the
FDCPA, P1QS reasonable -attorney'S faos and COllt.., I?laintitf' no
longer has a personal stako in the outoome of this litigation for
purpot::os of Jleat:ing the caso-or-contl:ovoray requ4'elI:ellt of
Article l:II, and her complaint "qainat defandant EquifalC shOUld
be diSlll.li!lG8d. '. The only 1ntere:!Jt: remaining- 1.s that of her
attorney. Were this case f:o proceed to trial, plaintiff eould
1011e, but lIlhe coullll no1: win 1I0re than what ill now bei>ll;f offered
to her by defendant,. Thus, continuing tha instant case- se.t:VQS no
leqlt1:.lllate purpose whatsoever.
It: i. appll.rQJltly plaint!!f'lI counsel'll view that iOlleli&1l a-
riqht under t.ho FDaPA to continue this action so aa to inOl:'easA
i
l
,
I
,
I.
I
,
i
i.
9
-- ---- ~-- - _.--
'\
her Ilttornny'lI feeB, unll U1at thfl ttCCr\l41 of DUch feuD, (which
will be PQid by dofendant if libo pr.va1h), I.. aonnlstont: with
conqrcnnlonlll intont.' While w. do not profaBs to undarntand why
the Act rof'..rll uuch IIJll"n caoo& Co UIC !Jusy Federal Courtsl.
rather than to an odminivtrotivD body for datermination, thar. Iii
nothing in the Aet suggesting that it was intended to create a
cottage indu.::try for thll produal:ion of attorney'u tCCG."
In rA. v. ~o~s &~, 109 F.3d 302 (6th ell'. 1997), the
Sixth c.lrcuit addrcnlOed the isBl.le ot an l1t.tol'nQy'a interest in a
"resliOll;u,le" Co.a award una..r the FDCPA. The court uphaJd the
di.tri~ col.lrt'a dceiaion exclUding from an attornoy'G fae award
tho!le te"", incurred tor: work perforJICd ..rte.r the. debl; collcctor
mad.. an attar to confess judgment tor "everything to Which [the
plaintift'} could r..asonaQly be conaic1e:r:ed entitlnd, ineludinq <In
attorney tOB that /;\ppellrec1 reasonablo in li.g11t or tho
· -This view _y explain the unusual nature of tae retainar
agree:ment- in this cue. IiIlllc note 6, .illID:a. _--')
I. Congrclll!l ~y have o....\llIted that litigation ",ould ensu..
only whnn tba debtor sufterQd s1gni1:1cant daDaqes. TI1e nUilerous
Ci\S<lllll b:t:l,lug11t by plaintiff'S counsel rarely demonstrat;e any -.:>.
aC~al damages'sUf~~ed by the plai.ntiffs. /
II The January 1993 issue of t:l1e 'ABA Journal oontains em
article desoribing the practlee at a solo practitioner in New
Mexico, Richi1rd J. Rubin, who handle.. consumer clailns agaiO!lt
aOOdve debt collectl)rs UJlder the FDCPA. The artiole report...
thll.t RUbin. "Peaking at a conferenCla of COMI1!Ili\r rights lawyers
in Bo;;:ton. "m.u:Bs no apolO9'i"'.. for his tactics, despite his own-
adllission that he roeU.. on technioal violations or the law to
bring" case, lIlWcGlll IIrbitrary settlement demands i.L=p"ctive- of
d;unaqas .and Qllrns far l\IOre in at1:orneys' fee" than his olients
are ant1t~ed to co1lQct." Mark Haneen, When Rl.lbin Sqes.
nerehdantB Settle: nn!lcrunulou. debt collectors nay the bills fo~
New ~gxiao consumer laWVRr, 79 A.B.A.J. ZR (Jan. 199J).
10
,.,)
'4lPll/OU
v--v''j
")lJC
c'(cA
~~,\\ P
,~}V' 0
- - -- - - -.---....-.- -..--
"\
cirouactano.. axiatlnq at tho time." l~ at 305. The nourt
round that it wag unreasonable for tho pl~1ntif!'a attorney tu
oontinua to porfora wo~k attar tbat afrer ot judqmcnt waG mad.
""<1, Lhcretor.., any toea incurrnd ottor tnl1t d"to wern
nDcoonar1ly unr~anonabl..- Id~ at 306, 301. Th. ~Aurt .~ated,
"[1]n 111reotinq tho court" to award 'reasonable' foes,
conqrose undoubtedlY wichDd to anY'ire that tho la~er
rQpr~scntinq 0 succes6ful plaintiff would receive a rea.onable
tee.:tor work rea..onl\bly lound nllcccsary -- nothing 11185. lll1d
nothill'J morc." IlL. at 30G-01. Conqress "conld har.dlY have
wiGhAd to reward lawyers tor doing nonproductive work and wa.ting
their adV$r~arie8' time nnd the timo ot the aourts "3 well." ~
I.,
I,: .
, '
k
I
'.
,.
at 306.
Yet, this 10 procisely what plaintiff's attornay in this
case is ankinq thic court to do -- to continue the litigation
when thore is no~ WlOre. that har clil!J\t oo\l.ld possibly
roceive, which would nat. only Wil..t:.. thio Court',. time, but: \:hat
of the &t:torn..ys and partie., ae well. Congress included a r.ll
award fo~ provailing plaihtiffs in the FOCPA, like othar connumer
proteotion IItatutoi.., to enoo\1%'..go able counsel to undertake FDCPA
caee... But, 1111' the sixth Circuit held in~, -..ble- co\U'l.llBl
shO\1lc1 aspire to aehieve their oUenta' Ol:ljeotives econOlllically
. . and,couneal mhou.ld not expli~ to reap financial rewards for
prolonging litigation unnecessarily." 109 ?3d at 307.
"Defendants, like the oourts, have an interest 1n peace; onco
there ill nO more dispute, there is no case. Both the parti.. and
,-
i"
.-
~i
\
,
,
,.:
t
r
~
~
.
"
1.1.
'1<
ii
/' j
I'
I
r'
r
I
i
l,:,
'.....,,1
!4lJU1J/lJ14
\
the court lIIay Gllve the costll 01' litigation." t\J.lling_I!\-12-tlul
~~fi~9Q. 820 F.~d at 878.
Altbough we Dre di~~ing pl~inti{f's elaim~. 1010 retain
juriodietloh to decide the i1J1ount or a rcaaonablA rce and ,",ust
award to be paid by the detand"nt r>lJrsuant to its ""ttlc,,u>nt.
offer. Tho attorne....s raD im'\I<.\ 1.. "ncillary to the underlyin']
ollct1on and ourvivR" indel'endently undl!lr the Court... equitable
jurisdiotion When the substantive ola~ arc diGmlssnd an ~oot.
CftrtcT v. Voterans A~iniritrati~. 780 ~.ad 1479, 1481 (9th clr.
1996) .
COnalus1olJ.
Therefore. tor the reasons a.t t~ ahove, the Ketion to
,
Dis~1g8 tor Lack of SUbjeot Matter Jurisdiction ot Dofendant.
EquiflU': Check Servioes, Ine.. [Doc. I 57] 10 GRAN'l'EO. 'Phis Court
retains ancillary juriudiction to cletcl1lline tn... alllount ot
reasonDble attorney'. ~ees and coots to be awarded to Pl~lp~lff.
Plaintiff's coun~Ql is direet~d to file har ~tion for attornay'&
fae" and costs. with supporting doeumentat1on, within thirty (30)
days ef the date of this ruling. ' Detend~nt shall Then have
twenty~one (21) day. to ragpond, and Plaintiff shall have ten
(10) days to Bubm!t a reply, if SDe so deBirQs.
50 oRDElttD.
Dated:
January ). 7 , 1999.
waterb.lry. Connecticut.
;
ii
I
~/4~
GERARD r.. GORTTEL.
United States D18'trictJud.'1'"
12
u
1\0
\
UNiTED S I'ATI:S flISTfllf:T r.OIJIlT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
FILED
DEIRDRE MURPHY
. ','-
~H~'., ~j." ;=..':. ;'~'!\':~:
J,'ll i8 3 'II PH '59
V3.
CIVIL 3:9~CV2410(GLGI
t'(hiJ./
EQUIFAX CHECK SERVICES, INC.
,IUDGMENT.
This action came on for oonslderatlonbetoro-the Honorllble Geterd L Goellel,
Senior United States District Judgo, on dafendant'& motion to dlsmi" for laok of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Court having considered the full record of the caSe filed
an Opinion on January 2B, 1999. granting the reliet.
It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED thot Judgment is entllred for tha
defendant and the c"." Is dismissed.
Oated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 28th day of January, 1999.
KEVIN F. ROWE, CLERK
BY~8Li.. <~._, L'~
Lbrl Inferrera
Deputy-ln-Chllrge
,
i
I.
3 1
/ 2
.--..
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.....',-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~
....,'ll:.C 25
l13-l
Upon signing below 1 attest tho testimony
horein is true and correct as given by ~e with any
corrections noted as per the errata sheet.
,
_ _ _ _ _ _I {c;. ~,-";..-<;;-.! _ .h..t:l ~ - - - 0]/: ~
JOANN~~AULKNER DATE
* * *
C)':_R1'-l.!"_l~~1'-E
I hereby certify that I was present upon the
above entitled matter and there reported in stenotype
the proceedings that took placa on February 19, 1999;
and further certify that the foregoing are fully and
accurately indicated in my notes, and that this is a
true and correct transcript of same to the best of my
ability.
-(jj~
HOY
Reporter
* * *
J
1
2 PAGE
3 1 L(
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'\
\
,~
,;
.~~
]19
EHHNI'A :;IlEET
J.T !IE
COHHECTIOll
. - .- --.
1 I (.'
: j,f-<,Ull'\/.lC J'P"
c
Iv
-~
CIIAD SEIDERS
IN TilE COllin OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v,
JOANNE FAULKNER
NO, 98-6296
Defendant
PRAECIPE TO D1SCONTIN{JE
To: Prothonotary
Kindly mark the above-referenced action discontinued and terminated without
prejudice,
Respectfully submitted,
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
~~~~~,
Mark D. Bradshaw
Supreme Court 1.0, 61975
213 Market Street
Harrisburg. PA 17108
Dated: 212(/0-0
(717) 237-6033
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark D. Bradshaw. Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as
I
I
[I
r
follows:
Stephen M, Greecher, Esquire
Tucker, Arnesberg & Swartz
111 N. Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17101
[
VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL
~~L
?Iz~ b
I
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire
"
,
i
I'
I
I
1
i
i>
I
iJ,
{LOllOlOl,l}
2