Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-2360Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt : collectors, : Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No.: Q 9", c)-3 ( 6 ov i I -f uo- 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 !as 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 dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. 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 ?OR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. Civil Action No.: G f? , ji- 3 66 G, ;, l 4X14, COMPLAINT GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. 2. Plaintiff is a consumer located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 4. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., contacted Plaintiff by letter dated FEbruary13, 2008 and March 14, 2008. 5. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, is a is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 6. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 7. Defendant Ross & Newman is a law firm/business entities engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. Defendant Ross & Newman contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 9. Defendant Ross & Newman left a voice message on the voicemail of Plaintiff's brother stating that there was an "important legal matter," and that the individual who called worked in the "processing serving department"and was preparing legal action. 10. At all times, the Defendants had Plaintiff's proper mailing address and telephone contacts. 11. During the course of the telephone message, Defendant Ross & Newman made a false statement that they had Plaintiff's brother as the contact for Plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff never gave her brother's information to the Defendants. 13. Hereinafter, each defendant will be collectively referred to as "Defendants" since all three share the same mailing address and their connection is unknown at this time. 14. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 15. On or about January of 2008 through April 2008, Defendants contacted Plaintiff by letter and telephone, on her cell and while at her place of employment, in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. 16. The alleged debt stems from an account that was placed in bankruptcy in 2002, and since that time, no payments were made on the account. 17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the initial communication was by telephone for two of the Defendants. 18. At no time during the telephone contacts did the Defendants inform Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCPA. 19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant does not have a valid assignment and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect the alleged debt. 20. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants failed to review the contract creating the alleged debt, otherwise, they would have known the alleged debt was time- barred and their threats of litigation false. 21. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant violated federal and state laws as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct. COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. §2270 et sec. 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 23. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. §1692n. Pennsylvania law applies to this Action. 18 Pa.C.S. §7311 et seq. 24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated 18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b), by not having a valid contract and written assignment for the alleged debt. 25. Plaintiff further believes that Defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as alleged in the General Allegations and the other Counts of this Complaint, as such, Defendants violated the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 26. That Defendants 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), -3)0-3).3(14),3033(18),303.6 and 73 P.S. §201-2(4). 27. Defendants' acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 28. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in an amount of not less that $30,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf and against Defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §2270.5. COUNT II - PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 30. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq. 31. That defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by UTPCPL. 32. 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 defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-902. COUNT III - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692 ET SEQ. 33. 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. 34. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 35. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 36. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(3). 37. Defendants contacted Plaintiff from January 2008 through April 2008, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). 38. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 39. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to plaintiff's alleged debt. 40. FDCPA requires debt collectors to comply with all state laws. 1.5 U.S.C. §1692n. Defendant violated Pennsylvania law states,18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b) for failing to properly review the contract creating the alleged debt and for failure to have a valid assignment of the alleged debt. 41. 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. 42. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 43. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 44. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants made all contacts to the Plaintiff by telephone. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by demanding payment without providing the proper consumer warnings, thus, defendants overshadowed the FDCPA. 48. 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." 49. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by attempting to collect a time barred debt. 50. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by threatening and/or filing suit without proper legal authority in Pennsylvania. 51. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) by using profane and abusive language towards the Plaintiff and her husband. 52. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by causing the phone to ring and engaging the consumer in repeated conversations. 53. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2) by communicating with third parties regarding the alleged debt, without the consent of the consumer. 54. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692b(3) by communicating with persons other than the Plaintiff more than one time, without consent and without the consent of the Plaintiff. 55. 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. 56. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as Pennsylvania law by failing to adequately review the contract creating the alleged debt, by failing to have a valid written assignment, by failing to properly record the alleged debt as disputed. 57. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by threatening litigation when the threat of litigation was false, is time-barred, and that he cannot bring legal action against her in Pennsylvania because he is not licensed here. 58. 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. 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. Defendant violated this section 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 states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 62. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 63. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendant. 64. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant cease communication with the Plaintiff. 65. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, by failing to give the required notices to the Plaintiff in the initial communication. 66. At all times pertinent hereto, the initial communication was made by telephone. 67. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was unable to dispute the alleged debt. 68. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding his/her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 69. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 70. The FDCPA states, it is unlawful to misrepresent the legal status of an allege debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f and § 1692e(2)(A). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 71. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10). 72. Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. 73. 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 Defendant herein. 74. 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. 75. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made false threats of litigation. 76. Defendant's threat of litigation was false because Defendant does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 77. Defendants' communications were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 78. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. 79. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of Defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 80. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 81. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 82. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of Defendant as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's behalf and against 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 Defendant 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 Defendant form letters. 0) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $450.00 per hour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff's attorney in vindicating Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). (D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. Dated:4/14/08 By: / /Deanna L$ nn Saracco Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com ?s ?.i w ?V _ C C'J _ - 1 R C IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Karen Adams, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. Civil Action No.: 08-2360 American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Deanna Lynn Saracco, and files this Praecipe to Reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned matter. Plaintiff attempted service of the Complaint via certified mail, as the defendant is an out of state entity and certified mail would be acceptable, however, the post office failed to have the defendant properly complete the certified mail receipt. Plaintiff intends to tempt service by Sheriff at this time. Dated: 6/24/08 By: Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No.: 08-2360 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 dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. ST 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 Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. Civil Action No.: 08-2360 COMPLAINT GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. 2. Plaintiff is a consumer located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 4. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., contacted Plaintiff by letter dated FEbruary13, 2008 and March 14, 2008. 5. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, is a is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 6. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 7. Defendant Ross & Newman is a law firm/business entities engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 8. Defendant Ross & Newman contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 9. Defendant Ross & Newman left a voice message on the voicemail of Plaintiff's brother stating that there was an "important legal matter," and that the individual who called worked in the "processing serving department"and was preparing legal action. 10. At all times, the Defendants had Plaintiff s proper mailing address and telephone contacts. 11. During the course of the telephone message, Defendant Ross & Newman made a false statement that they had Plaintiff's brother as the contact for Plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff never gave her brother's information to the Defendants. 13. Hereinafter, each defendant will be collectively referred to as "Defendants" since all three share the same mailing address and their connection is unknown at this time. 14. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 15. On or about January of 2008 through April 2008, Defendants contacted Plaintiff by letter and telephone, on her cell and while at her place of employment, in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. 16. The alleged debt stems from an account that was placed in bankruptcy in 2002, and since that time, no payments were made on the account. 17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the initial communication was by telephone for two of the Defendants. 18. At no time during the telephone contacts did the Defendants inform Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCPA. 19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant does not have a valid assignment and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect the alleged debt. 20. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants failed to review the contract creating the alleged debt, otherwise, they would have known the alleged debt was time- barred and their threats of litigation false. 21. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant violated federal and state laws as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct. COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. §2270 et sec. 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 23. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. §1692n. Pennsylvania law applies to this Action. 18 Pa.C.S. §7311 et seq. 24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated 18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b), by not having a valid contract and written assignment for the alleged debt. 25. Plaintiff further believes that Defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as alleged in the General Allegations and the other Counts of this Complaint, as such, Defendants violated the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 26. That Defendants 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). 27. Defendants' acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 28. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in an amount of not less that $30,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf and against Defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §2270.5. COUNT II - PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 30. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P. S. §201-1 et seq. 31. That defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by UTPCPL. 32. 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 Plaintiff's behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §241-902. COUNT III - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692 ET SEQ. 33. 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. 34. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 35. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 36. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(3). 37. Defendants contacted Plaintiff from January 2008 through April 2008, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). 38. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 39. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to plaintiff's alleged debt. 40. FDCPA requires debt collectors to comply with all state laws. 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. Defendant violated Pennsylvania law states,18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b) for failing to properly review the contract creating the alleged debt and for failure to have a valid assignment of the alleged debt. 41. 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. 42. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 43. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 44. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants made all contacts to the Plaintiff by telephone. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by demanding payment without providing the proper consumer warnings, thus, defendants overshadowed the FDCPA. 48. 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." 49. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by attempting to collect a time barred debt. 50. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by threatening and/or filing suit without proper legal authority in Pennsylvania. 51. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) by using profane and abusive language towards the Plaintiff and her husband. 52. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) by causing the phone to ring and engaging the consumer in repeated conversations. 53. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2) by communicating with third parties regarding the alleged debt, without the consent of the consumer. 54. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3) by communicating with persons other than the Plaintiff more than one time, without consent and without the consent of the Plaintiff. 55. 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. 56. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as Pennsylvania law by failing to adequately review the contract creating the alleged debt, by failing to have a valid written assignment, by failing to properly record the alleged debt as disputed. 57. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by threatening litigation when the threat of litigation was false, is time-barred, and that he cannot bring legal action against her in Pennsylvania because he is not licensed here. 58. 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. 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. Defendant violated this section 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 states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 62. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 63. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendant. 64. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant cease communication with the Plaintiff. 65. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, by failing to give the required notices to the Plaintiff in the initial communication. 66. At all times pertinent hereto, the initial communication was made by telephone. 67. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was unable to dispute the alleged debt. 68. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding his/her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 69. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 70. The FDCPA states, it is unlawful to misrepresent the legal status of an allege debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f and § 1692e(2)(A). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 71. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 72. Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. 73. 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 Defendant herein. 74. 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. 75. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made false threats of litigation. 76. Defendant's threat of litigation was false because Defendant does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) and (10). 77. Defendants' communications were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 78. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. 79. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of Defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 80. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter (ilia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 81. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 82. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of Defendant as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiffs behalf 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 Defendant 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 Defendant form letters. (0) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $450.00 per hour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff's attorney in vindicating Plaintiffs 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. Dated:4/14/08 By: / /Dean ynn Saracco Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com 3 IV i- L J -? 1 t7 C-P Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. USR Group, Inc., and American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No.: 08-2360 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 TARE 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 notification y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. 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 Karen Adams, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No.: 08-2360 USR GROUP, INC., and American Consolidebt, Inc., and Weiss & Muller, LLC, and Ross & Newman, attorney debt collectors, Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. 2. Plaintiff is a consumer located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant USR Group, Inc., is a business entity engaged in the business of collection consumer debts in this Commonwealth, with a mailing address of 33 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 208, Huntington Station, NY 11746-4281. 4. Defendant USR Group, Inc., hired American Consolidebt, a company which informed the sheriff of Suffolk County that it no longer existed. 5. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 6. Defendant American Consolidebt, Inc., contacted Plaintiff by letter dated February 13, 2008 and March 14, 2008. 7. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, is a is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 8. Defendant Weiss & Muller, LLC, contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 9. Defendant Ross & Newman is a law firm/business entities engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address 918 Jericho Turnpike, Huntington Station, NY, 11746. 10. Defendants contacted Plaintiff by telephone and during the course of those telephone conversations, threatened litigation and failed to give Plaintiff the proper notices as required by the FDCPA. 11. Defendants left a voice message on the voicemail of Plaintiff's brother stating that there was an "important legal matter," and that the individual who called worked in the "processing serving department"and was preparing legal action. 12. At all times, the Defendants had Plaintiff's proper mailing address and telephone contacts. 13. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant USR Group, Inc., in Huntington Station, NY, used various aliases, named as defendants herein, in order to add heightened urgency to the collection of the alleged debt. 14. At all times pertinent hereto, the theories of principal/agent and respondent superior apply to this Action. 15. USR Group, Inc., used various entities and/or aliases to make false, deceptive and illegal threats towards the Plaintiff. 16. During the course of the telephone message, Defendants made a false statement that they had Plaintiff's brother as the contact for Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff never gave her brother's information to the Defendants. 18. Hereinafter, each defendant will be collectively referred to as "Defendants" since all share the same mailing address and their connection is unknown at this time. 19. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 20. On or about January of 2008 through April 2008, Defendants contacted Plaintiff by letter and telephone, on her cell and while at her place of employment. in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. 21. The alleged debt stems from an account that was placed in bankruptcy in 2002, and since that time, no payments were made on the account. 22. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the initial communication was by telephone for two of the Defendants. 23. At no time during the telephone contacts did the Defendants inform Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCPA. 24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants do not have a valid assignment and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect the alleged debt. 25. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants failed to review the contract creating the alleged debt, otherwise, they would have known the alleged debt was time- barred and their threats of litigation false. 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated federal and state laws as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct. COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. §2270 et seg. 27. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 28. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. Pennsylvania law applies to this Action. 18 Pa.C.S. §7311 et seq. 29. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated 18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b), by not having a valid contract and written assignment for the alleged debt. 30. Plaintiff further believes that Defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as alleged in the General Allegations and the other Counts of this Complaint, as such, Defendants violated the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). 31. That Defendants 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). 32. Defendants' acts as described herein were done with malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs rights with the purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 33. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in an amount of not less that $30,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court issue judgment on his behalf and against Defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §2270.5. COUNT II - PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 34. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 35. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq. 36. That defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by UTPCPL. 37. 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 Plaintiff's behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. §201-902. COUNT III - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692 ET SEQ. 38. 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. 39. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 40. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 41. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(3). 42. Defendants contacted Plaintiff from January 2008 through April 2008, which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). 43. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 44. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to plaintiff's alleged debt. 45. FDCPA requires debt collectors to comply with all state laws. 15 U.S.C. § 1692n. Defendants violated Pennsylvania law states, 18 Pa.C.S. §7311(a) and (b) for failing to properly review the contract creating the alleged debt and for failure to have a valid assignment of the alleged debt. 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. § 1692£ Defendants 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. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants made all contacts to the Plaintiff by telephone. 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. § 1692f, by attempting to collect a time barred debt. 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 Plaintiff and her husband. 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. § 1692b(2) by communicating with third parties regarding the alleged debt, without the consent of the consumer. 59. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692b(3) by communicating with persons other than the Plaintiff more than one time, without consent and without the consent of the Plaintiff. 60. 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. 61. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as Pennsylvania law by failing to adequately review the contract creating the alleged debt, by failing to have a valid written assignment, by failing to properly record the alleged debt as disputed. 62. Defendant attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by threatening litigation when the threat of litigation was false, is time-barred, and that he cannot bring legal action against her in Pennsylvania because he is not licensed here. 63. 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. § 1692£ Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 64. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 65. 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. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 66. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 67. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 68. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 69. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant cease communication with the Plaintiff. 70. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, by failing to give the required notices to the Plaintiff in the initial communication. 71. At all times pertinent hereto, the initial communication was made by telephone. 72. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was unable to dispute the alleged debt. 73. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding his/her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 74. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 75. The FDCPA states, it is unlawful to misrepresent the legal status of an allege debt, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f and § 1692e(2)(A). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA. 76. Defendants' collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 77. Defendants' communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. 78. At all time pertinent hereto, the Defendants were 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 Defendant herein. 79. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants as well as their agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 80. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants/agents made false threats of litigation. 81. The threats of litigation was false because Defendants do not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 82. The communications were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 83. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. 84. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of Defendants rise to the level needed for punitive damages. 85. Defendants, in its/their collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 86. Defendants, in their collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 87. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of Defendants as aforementioned, plaintiff has been subjected to anxiety, harassment, intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's behalf and against Defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the FDCPA or each separate and discrete incident in which each Defendant 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 Defendant(s) form letters. C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $450.00 per hour, for hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff's attorney in vindicating Plaintiff's 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. Dated: 10/2/08 By: /s eanna v ara co Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com i l cp U1 = 5"il .i .. :7?