Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-236507 - a3 4s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Antoinette Smith Greenmont Drive Enola, PA 17025 Peerless Credit Services, Inc. 725 Maple Road Middletown, PA 17057 Plaintiff(s) & Addresses Defendant(s) & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to (X ) Attorney ( ) Sheriff. Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Phone 717-732-3750 SaraccoLaw@aol.com 'LiA' Attorney Deanna Lynn Saracco Dated: 4/23/07 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): NTIFF(S) SHAVE YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED 41motar COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. 411 Pr y Dat ed: 'JILI 60 7 Deputy By: C f - f nY. N '"C7 !V CeJ fV O - Ti i? D:Z? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Antoinette Smith, Plaintiff, V. Peerless Credit Services, Inc. Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN: You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint, or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA 1-800-990-9108, 717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder diners o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. Civil Action No.: 07-2365 LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGAD00 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Antoinette Smith, Plaintiff, V. Peerless Credit Services, Inc. Defendant. Civil Action No.: 07-2365 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is an individual, residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §I692a(3). 2. Defendant Peerless Credit Services, Inc., is a business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts in this Commonwealth with its principal place of business located at 725 Maple Road, Middletown, PA 17057. 3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff was making payments, via electronic transfer from her account, on the alleged debt, despite the fact that she disputed the amount owed and/or the calculation of the alleged debt. 4. Plaintiff disputed the amount of the alleged debt. 5. During the course of the conversation, at no time did the agents of the Defendant advise Plaintiff how she might dispute the alleged debt. 6. Plaintiff attempted to settle the alleged debt, based on what she believed to be the correct amount owed. 7. Agents of defendant informed her that they were going to file suit immediately, that they never make settlements. 8. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the agents of the defendant merely wanted to argue with her over the allege debt. 9. The agent of the Defendant, Mr. Joe Raffman, kept screaming at Plaintiff, telling her that he was going to destroy her credit. 10. Plaintiff was speaking speaking with Mr. Raf fan in a calm and rational manner. It. Plaintiff continued to try to seek information and the debt collector hung up on her. 12. Plaintiff called the debt collector, a woman answered, and immediately started insulting Plaintiff, calling her a "hot-head." 13. Plaintiff was shocked since it was the debt collector that screamed at her and hung up. 14. The defendant stated that he would not sue her or destroy her credit if she paid immediately, with a check by phone or a credit card. 15. Plaintiff gave her Visa information and hung up. 16. At all times Plaintiff disputed the alleged debt, however, she paid the entire, disputed amount, based on the false threats, harassment and misrepresentations of the defendant's agents. 17. On or about January through April 2007, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by U.S. Mail and/or telephone calls in an attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt. 18. Defendant is a debt collectors as defined by the state law and the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. 11692a(6). 19. Defendant sent letters and/or made telephone calls to Plaintiff between January 2007 and April 2007, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2). 20. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendant alleged that Plaintiff owed consumer debt. 5 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 21. Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to plaintiff s alleged debt. 22. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant's letters contained false, misleading, deceptive and/or confusing statements. 23. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of Defendant, in its telephone communications made false, misleading, deceptive and/or confusing statements. 24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of Defendant, in its telephone communications, were rude, beligerent, insulting and harassing to the Plaintiff. 25. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of Defendant, failed to provide the consumer with a validation notice within five days of the initial communication. 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of defendant, made the initial communication by telephone and failed to provide the Plaintiff with the proper consumer warning as required under the FDCPA. 27. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of defendant, in its telephone communications, overshadowed the FDCPA. 28. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the defendant is attempting to collect a time- barred debt. 29. Plaintiff disputes the alleged debt and hereby requests proof of the manner in which the alleged debt was calculated, as is required by state and federal law. COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully stated herein. 31. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. 32. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 33. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by FCEU and the regulations, including but not limited to, violations of 37 Pa.Code §§303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. §201-2(4). 34. Defendant's acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 35. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on Plaintiffs behalf and against defendant for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. 2207.5. COUNT H - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 37. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. §1337. 38. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 39. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. §1692n. 40. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant does not have proper assignment of the claim, and is therefore, unable to collect the alleged debt pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §7311 (a)(1) and (2). 41. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant does not have proper assignments and/or documentation permitting said defendants to charge interest, fees and/or costs. 18 Pa.C.S. §73112(b)(1). 42. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 43. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant added interest, fees and costs in violation of state and federal law. 44. Defendant in its collection efforts, demanded interest, fees and/or costs in violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) and 1692e(2)A and B. 45. There was never an express agreement by Plaintiff to pay any additional fees, cost or interest to Defendant or any of its agents. 46. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692f. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 47. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 48. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 49. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendants cease communication with the Plaintiff. 50. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11) by failing to provide the consumer with the proper warning, "this is an attempt to collect a debt, any information obtained will be used for that purpose," during the initial telephone communications and in subsequent communications. 51. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g, by failing to provide the consumer with the proper validation notice within five days of the initial communication. 52. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g by demanding payment without providing the proper consumer warnings, thus, defendants overshadowed the FDCPA. 53. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(7) by implying, during the course of the conversation, that the consumer was in "trouble with the law," and/or "committed fraud." 54. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(15) by using a name other than the true name of the debt collectors business. 55. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by threatening and/or filing suit without proper legal authority in Pennsylvania. 56. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d(2) by using profane and abusive language towards the consumer. 57. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by causing the phone to ring and engaging the consumer in repeated conversations. 58. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) by communicating with the consumer at his/her place of employment, despite being told that such phone calls were prohibited. 59. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10). Defendant violated these sections of the FDCPA. 60. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 61. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. §1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 62. Any threat of litigation is false if the defendant rarely, sues consumer debtors or if the defendant did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bently v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau. 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5),15 U.S.C. §1692e(10). 63. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein. 64. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of defendant as well as their agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 65. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 66. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 67. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 68. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of defendants as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment for Plaintiff and against defendant and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. (B) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at Plaintiff in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of defendants form letters. C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $350.00/hour for hours reasonably expended Plaintiff's attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). (D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. Dated: 9/21/07 BY: /s/I &Lynn Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com ~' ' -t? F' RICHARD J. PERK, ESQUIRE e-mail: rperrna,finemanlawfirm.com Attorney I.D. PA 72883 FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. 30 South 17`h Street, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-4005 (v) 215-893-9300 (f) 215-893-8739 ANTOINETTE SMITH, Plaintiff V. PEERLESS CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Peerless Credit Services, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-2365 PRAECIPE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL You are directed to take notice that the above action has been removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania at 1:07-cv-01937-YK, pursuant to the attached Notice of Removal filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 23, 2007. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. By ','/ RICHARD J. PERM, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant Dated: October 24, 2007 {00074482;v1} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RICHARD J. PERK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe of Notice of Removal electronically or by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, PA 17025 PHONE 717-732-3750 FAX 717-728-9498 saraccolaw(,aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RICHARD J. P , ESQUIRE Dated: October 24, 2007 {00074482;v1} EXHIBIT A .-C.^ Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTOINETTE SMITH, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff V. NO. PEERLESS CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendant PEERLESS CREDIT SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Peerless"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby petition this Court as follows, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b): 1. Peerless is a defendant in an action pending in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Civil No. 07-2365 ("the State Court Action"). Peerless received a copy of the Complaint on or about September 24, 2007. A true and correct copy of the Complaint in the State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiff in the State Court Action is Antoinette Smith. See Exhibit "A". 3. Plaintiff s State Court Action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. 4. The State Court Action involves a question of federal law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), "Any civil action of which the district court shall have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under ... the laws of the United States shall be removable." 5. Since this case arises out of an alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., this Court may properly remove the State Court Action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). {00074426;vII Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 3 6. This Notice has been filed with the Court within thirty (30) days after purported service of the Complaint on defendant Peerless. WHEREFORE, defendant Peerless Credit Services, Inc., prays that the State Court Action be removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Civil No. 07-2365, to this Court for proper and just determination. FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. By s/Richard J. Perr RICHARD J. PERK, ESQUIRE (PA No. 72883) 30 South 170' Street, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-4005 (v) 215-893-9300 (f) 215-893-8739 e-mail: rperr a,finemanlawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant Peerless Credit Services, Inc. Dated: October 23, 2007 f 00074426;v1 }2 Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, RICHARD J. PERK, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal electronically or by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, PA 17025 saraccolawAao1.com Attorneys for Plaintiff s/Richard J. Perr RICHARD J. PERK, ESQUIRE Dated: October 23, 2007 (00074426;vl) 3 Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 1 of 8 EXHIBIT A 1V 9 99/ 25/2..9asa:97'7-cN 541?R$z3'J.K SIP-24-2007-MOX 01:06 P9 Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 2 of 8 PAGE 97/13 F. 005 . iN ME COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANLk Arrtoi laeft Swlttk Civil ,A,cdom No.: 07-2365 KoWdft V. Peewees Credit Servica, lho. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Detudant, B'O,TIC3 TO . PLTAD_ You.have been sued in court. if you wish to defend against the claims eat forth in the following pages, you must take action within tr Y-(.2oL Yj after this Complaint is served, by ' entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint, or for any other claim or relief .requested by the Plaintiff. You may pose money bz property or other rights important to you. ' YOU SHOULD TAIM THIS PAPER TO YOUR L&WYLR AT ONCE. IF YOU DO.)9,0T 1MV3 _ A LAW"M OR CANNOT AFFORD OUR r GO TO OR { T01APE0NE THE OFFICR SET FORTH BELOW TO F%M 010T OMW YOU CAN GHT LZGd4L HWLP. Cctmberlaud County Bar A.ssociatka 3z S. Bedford Stm4 Caucfl k r* . xzc? Lo h4n daamndada n usted en la Corte. Si usted quirt d®fendexse de j estas demodge expuetas en las pagInas sigmientos, usted tigne oleute (20) i dias de plaza a1 partir de 18 fecha de la axcrita o en personal a por sbogado y archivar an Is aorte en foxma exoxita sus defeneas o sus objectioneo a lass demande, is acrte twaaxa medfdas y pueea entrar una order contra uated sin previo aviso o notifi,cacion y ,por cualquier queja o alivi,o qua 49 pedido on la peticion de demands. Usted puede parder dinero o sus propiad*4as o otros derechos importantes pars ust®d. ' LLSVE ESTA ME "DA A U10 ABOGADO IMEDIATAWNTE. SI 140 TIZNE ADOGAD00 SI ti NO TIM ]CL DINERO SUi ICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVYCION, VAYA EN MSONA, o LLAME I FOR TSLEFONO A LA OFICINA CVYA OIRDCCION 6E PUEDECONORQUIR ASISTENCIA LtGAL. i 18s - - 09/25/2007as 7-cvCA$I?d2i1< SIP-24-200740N 01:06 P r .w. r. .? .h r r Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 3 of 8 PACE 88/13 P, 006 IN THE COURT OF CObWON PLEAS CUNSERLA ND COUNTY, PElV1 SnVApIT,A? A•tto? SWth, Civil Action No.: 07-2365 E'taiaoRi? V. Peerless cow Services, Inc. JURY TRL 1 DEMANDED Defmdant. 1. Plaintiff is an individual, residing hi the Commoowealth of Peuasylvania, ad coztsumer pmst mt to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a% 2. Dei nt Peerless Cte t Sezviiom, Me., is a bu imm eatity(les) wVged in the buelmn of collcc4ag debts in dais ComomouwuMwith its pdocipat place of busitcrosa located at 725 Maple Road, Mtddietown, PA x7057. 3. At all times pertinaat hereto, Plaintiff was Mal Mg paymcmta, via alechn is to msfer from. her aocom4 on the alleged debt, dcapite the fact that ahe disputod tits amunt owed =Not the calcalaiion ofte aldegod debt. 4. Plaintiff disputed the awouat of tha alleged debt, i 5. Dwiag the course of the cp aye on, at no time did the aganu of tale Defecant advise Plaintiff how she might dispute the alleged debt.. 6. Phindff- mPW to settle ft alleged debt,, based on what she believed to be the correct j amount owed. .• sa?r? aa? vIL ?u..+wt u1UlVR+rLr' nmer wake settlgvtEtltS- 8. Plaintiff believes nd *a6fore avm that the agews of the deft adont mady wanted to eque ailh her over the allege debt" 9.- The agent of ft Defendtmt, W. Joe Raffm a, kvt scawming at Plaintiff, telling her ghat ` he waa going to destroy her credit. I to. Plaintiff' was $PC"$ spwkiug with Aft. Ra£fman in a oaht and oAonal mama. ll. Platnth cou ued to try to seek infonnatioit and the debt collector htmg up on law. 12. Plaintiff called rho debt collector, a woman answered, attd lanmedlataly stmt d fnsul#ug rw?m ar?r^..--- es/ 25/ 2ee?ajed:1?7-c513i&3 K SEP-24-2007-901 01:06 PY PtaiwjA calft her a "hot head" 13. Plaintiff vuas shocked siMe it was the debt collector dW screamed st her and htatg up. 14. Tice def*udattt stated that he would not sue her or destroy her credit if she paid imme:diatety, with a check by phone or a oredit card. 15. Plaintiff gave het Visa information and bog up. 16. At-all titmaa Plaintiff disputed the alleged debt, however, she paid the eadre, dlsputtd amount, based on the false ttmenb, harassment and mitsreixo a ntsdons of the defendant's aSKIts. M On or about January throagh Apia 2007, DeSaatdaut conta*d Plaintiff by U.S. M91 and/or telephone r„a11s in au auewt to collect an alleged oonsnmer debt. 18. Defendant is a debt collection as d8fiicced by ft state tQw and the FDCp& 15 U.S,C. 11692x(6). 19. Defend" seat letters and/or made telepbwe cells to Pleiodffbetwma Away 2007 and April 2007, WWcIa ere "common icadore rela*X to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692x(2). 20. At all perdwat times hereto, the defezc6 t sllaged that PlArafiff owed oom mear debt. 5 U.S.C. § 1692at(S). (Heivinaft the "alleged debt.11 21. Defndant oonwunicated,% t ptaindff'on or dw one year before the date, of this action, in counection with colleodoxx efforts, by letters, telephonte contact or other doonments, with regard to ptaictWs alleged debt. 22. i'Wata believes and therefore avert that Peihadant's bees coaWned false, misleading, Document 1-2 Filed 10123/2007 Page 4 of 8 PAGE r, Oui 09/13 t f 23. Plaindff believes and themfore avers that agents of Defe&nt, In its telephone eommunicat oas made Me, misleading, deceptive and/or confmir g statemou. 24. Matiffbelicves and thwafte avers t W.Vewd of Dafendmt, in its telephone commtunicadtons, were tude, beligecent, insuUIzg wA hamming to ttta plainta. 25. IftttifPbdieves and therofbre avers to agents of Defiemdaut, Bled to provide the consumer v ft a validation notice within fcve drys of the initial oomrnunioation. 26. Plaintlffbelieves and therefore avers that agents of defendant, made the ianitW aot=ugicaR eA by telephone and failed to provide the Plaintiff, the propet wamner warnb g as required under the PDCP,A.. 09/25/288Ta24:67"7-%9jj908zsi K Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 5 of 8 S8P-24-2007-1dON Ol' 07 PM PAGE 10/13 a . 27. Plaintf'bebevcs and therefore avers that agents of defeadant; is its telephome oommuvicatloM overshadowed the FDCP& i 28. Moff believes and therefore aver that the def'andent is attempting to collect a *w- bsried debt 29.- Piail Aff disputes the alleged debt anal beToby reguestb proof of the rawer in wWch the alloged debt was caloulauA as is required by smote and fedwal law, 30. Plaintiff hereby inooirgoratcs the Foregoing as if fully stmd haeln. 31, Jurisdiction for d ils Acdon is awe rW parsuaiYt to the Pennsylvavda Fair Credit Extension Lkdformity Act, 73 F.S. §2270 e t qeq. 32. Violating provhdora of ft Pair Debt Collation t'ra'nces Act also violate the Petuisylvaaia FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 33. 'flint defmdant engaged in. whir methods of eompetit as and uttfxek or d®eeptlve acts or pmdws, as defined by FCEU and the regulations, imiudit but not limited to, violatians of 37 VLCode §§303.3(3),303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. §201-2(4). 34. De dam's acts as descrjW heroin were done with malicious, intentional, willful, tcckless, negligent and wanton disregwd for Plal atiff's rigbits with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 35. As a result of the above vtolat QO-% Muff is ernitled tD:9ta O'Ey, actual, treble and WHERRP'URT, plaintiff requests dA this Honorable Court issue judptwx on ly stiffs behalf and against defentdaat for a sw utaxy penny, treble damages, punitive damages, aitomay fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. 2201.5. C4 I :. &U M, COCTYONR&CTIC? Ids = 36. Plaintiiffhereby incorporates the foregoing es if Ally set forth herein. 37. JurbdMon for 06 a+ctiott is a99er6od pursumoot to the Fair Debt Collectio>u Practices Act, Is U.S.C. §1692, et seq. C'MCPA"), paniaularly 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) and 29 U.S.C. §1337. 09/25/2887 a14; 107 07-c6 01937- K Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 6 of 8 PAGE 11/13 W-24-2007-MON 01.07 PM P, 009 38. Veaue lies in this District pvrsuaat to 28 U.S.C 1391(b)- 39. The FDCPA states that a violation of soft law is a violation of the FDCPA.15 U.S.C. §16M 1 40. Plaintilfbeligves and dwo biv avers 0* defendant does not barge proper essigaaaentt of the claim, and is du uOM unable to collleat the alleged debt pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a)(1) and (2). 41. Plaintiff believes wd thezefore avers that defendant does not bave proper a meats attdlor docmentatiozt psrmltftg said de£ettdants to charge inxerest, fees and/or costs. 18 PLC S. 673112(bxl ). 42. IV FDCPA states that a violation of state law its a violation of the FDCPA. 1S U.S.C. §1692n. Defmdaat violated ribs section of the PACPA. • 43. Plaia ffbatieves and thmforc ewers that defendant added interest, fees and costs In violation of state and federal law. 44. Defendant in its collection efforts, demanded h*res4 fees and/or costs in vioMon of the PDCPA., 15 V.S.C. § 169211`1) and 1692e(2)A, and B. 45, There was nem an express agreca mgt by Plaintiff to pay any adifttional foes, cost or kma"t to Defendant or aM of its agents. 46. The FDCPA sates, a debt oolicotor may not use utiir or uucoascionetble mews to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Def=daut violated this section of the FDCPA- 47. The Defeadaatss vlolated 15 U.S.C. § 1692o(b) by oonwOng a tbard party, wld imt the Wrier c?oti?attt _ . A I49. The Defendants Violated l$ U.S.C. § 16920(2)(A (5) and (14).by mWepresenting rite Wunin wee of legal orgoti by Defendants. 49. The DefesAmts violated 15 J.S.C.11692x3 by contacfLug tote Plaintiff CM the Plaiudff had requested the Defendants cease oommwaicatiton Ath rise Flaindff. 50. Ae. Def'endant"4 violated 15 U.&C, it 692e(l 1) by failing-to pr ovlde the aotwuner with the proper warning, ``chits is an attempt to collect a debt, any irArmadoot obWued will be used for tbist.putrse," during the initial telephone communications aid in subsegwd communications. 51. Defeadauts violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g, by failing to provide the consumer with the y Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 7 of 8 e9/25/29e7 14;97 6513186232 SEP-24-2007-MON 01:07 FM PAGE ,._....._ .. ?,:.., _ . .M. P, 010 12/23 proper validation notice whhia five days of the Witiat communication. 52. Defendants viol 15 U.S.C. §16928 by demanding payment without providing die i ptvW con== warnlugs, thus, da fen is ovenWowed the FDCPA, I 53. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §16920(7) by implyia& dulft the Mum of the eonver won, that the consumer was to "double with the law." aradlor "oo hed fraud." 54. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(15) by using a name other than ttve true name of the debt collectors business. 55. J)cfaidants violated 15 U.S.C. §16M by t4v ing wA&or filing suit without proper legal autbority iu. Pennsylvwa. 56. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692¢(2) by using profAw and abusive language towards the consumer. 57, Defendmb violated 15 V.S.C. §1692d(5) by causing the phone to ring and eng*&S the oot>sumer in xepeatcd convexsaxiorts. 59. Ddmdants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(3) by communics4*9 with the consumer at his/her place of employment, despite being told tbat such phone calls were prohibited. 59, The PDCPA. states, a doV coilecter may not am Use, dmepdve or mleadbag repiresente4on or means in oomwtion with tide coltw on of any debt. 15 U.S.G. § 1:492e(5) and (10). Defendant violated these sections of the FDCPA. 60. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not eapp in any conduct the AataW eonseque nee of wldch is to harems, oppress or abuse aaq? pson in connection with the collection of a debt. 13 U.S.C. § 16924. Defendant violated this section of to FDCPA. `i• CRA.pW32 AC corraitt riahte to the consMet her right to disprutetM Waged debt, 15 U.S.C. §2 6928. Defdant violated this soodon of the -1; ACFA- 6Z. Any threat of liWon is Me if the defendant rarely, sues consumer debtors or if dw defendant did not intend to sue the PWxdff. HcAYu_C'-eet like Calms Qn uroa?s, 6 F.3d 62 (2d CU. 1998). Sec a*, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5),15 U.S.C, §1692e(la). 63. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting-by and, through its.agents, awnuts xWor employees, wbo were acting w'ttbm the scope and course of tbek "loynaent, and under the direct supervision sod contirol of the defeadaats herein. 64- At all times perdmat hereto, the conduct of detenda nt as well as their agents, servants, and er employees, was malicious, intentional; willful. reckless, negfterd and in wanton Case 1:07-cv-01937-YK Document 1-2 Filed 10/23/2007 Page 8 of 8 99/25/2907 14:97 6513108231 SRP-24°2007-MOX 01:07 PM PAGE 13/13 .,..... P. Oil disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 65, The above nientioued acts with sVportiag oasts demo tes that the conduot of defendants rises to the level needod for pWAOve dwasa s. 66. Defendant, !a its collection efforts, vloWed the FDCPA. k ar alfu, Sections 1692, b, c, d, C. f, gi h, and/or +a. 67. Defendant, in its coftdon efforts, used Use or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and buss plaitttiff. 68. , T be, as a result of the wrongful tactloe of defevdanes as shrementionod, plainti ff has been subjected to axtxiety, haxasMA? WWdadon and atrnoyence for WWoh compensation is sought. WHE REFOM- Plaintiff xspec4WIy inquests that his Z~Iouomble Court r judgumt for Piaiuff and against defendaw and issue an Order: (A) Awar+d-P1aimtiff statutory damages in the emouut of Oue Thousand Doha ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate aM disareta incident It which defoxtdaits ittave violated the FDCM (13) Award PlaWtif'genexal &wgg" and primitive damages for anxiety, harassmea; and intiWdation dhwkd at Plaintiff In 'an amount not loss than Ten Thousu d Dollars ($10,000.00), as well Ss the repetitive mature of defeadauts forn'letters. C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a twox a6k attorney's fee at a nft of $3 50.00/hour for htouzs reasorutbiy expended Plainfes attomey in viond eating tuffs rights under the FDUA, petwitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(aX3). Aw9nt d unetive ne14 sad such other relief as this 1.1or?ombtc Court deems necessary acrd proper or law or equity way provide. i statutory, actual, tmble and punitive damp and 's fees and costs. I Datod:9121/07 By., ?s??n?aa?yna Deanna Lym Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 70 Oreomnoat'Drtda, mole, PA 17025 _ Tale*xxe 717-732-3730 Fax 717-7289498 P=ail: 3arwwLaw@aol.coru c:? "T1 ' , ; ["i1.