Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-0418 Mary Lou Matsko Plaintiff, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No.: The Law Firm of William J. Urban, CO., LPA, and William J. Urban Jr., An individual debt collection attorney, Defendants. Pl r(l T-4I M NOTICE TO PLEAD TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA 1-800-990-9108, 717-249-3166 NOTICIA 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. 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 ABOGADOO SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISIENCIA LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mary Lou Matsko Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No The Law Firm of William J. Urban, CO., LPA, and William J. Urban Jr., An individual debt collection attorney, Defendants. 2 3 4. 5. 6 7. COMPLAINT GENERAL ALLEGATIONS O9. -//F &,;a 7,? Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq. Plaintiff is a consumer located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Defendant the Law Firm of William J. Urban, Co., LPA, is owned and operated by Defendant William J. Urban, Jr., and hereinafter, both defendants shall simply be referred to as Defendants. Defendants are a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 434 High Street, N.E., Warren, Ohio, 44482-4349, P. O. Box, 4349, Warren, Ohio. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a). On or about October 2008, Defendants began contacting the Plaintiff by telephone and letter in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. The alleged debt is more than 4 years old. 8. The Plaintiff lived in North Carolina when the judgment was entered against her in 1991, and did not live in Ohio. 9. Plaintiff was never notified of any pending action against her in the state of Ohio. 10. The Defendants are not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. 11. The Defendants, according to their letter, apparently obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff for a debt that she does not owe. 12. The Defendants, according to their letter, apparently obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff without having proper jurisdiction over the Plaintiff. 13. The Defendants, according to their letter, apparently obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff without serving Plaintiff proper notice. 14. The Defendants, according to their letter, obtained said judgment in 1991 and requested that the judgment be docketed in the Court of Common Pleas of Ashtabula County, Ohio, on August 23, 2007. 15. At no time did Plaintiff receive notice of the judgment in 1991 or the attempting revival of the judgment in 2007. 16. Plaintiff was contacted by the attorney via telephone, advising her that she must immediately pay the alleged debt. 17. Plaintiff disputed the alleged debt by telephone. 18. Plaintiff, believing that the law firm was going to sue her and take property from her, including attach her wages, contacted an attorney and this suit resulted. 19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the law firm failed in its duty to reasonably investigate the alleged debt. 20. Defendants made numerous threats of litigation, despite Plaintiff repeatedly disputing the alleged debt. 21. The attached letter and court documents are the first communications from the Defendants to the Plaintiff and said documents do not advise Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCPA. 22. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the letters and phone calls from a law firm are an invitation to communicate and negotiate with an attorney. 23. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff believed that she was dealing with an attorney who obtain a judgment against her. 24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the interests of the law firm are adverse to that of the Plaintiff. 25. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff misunderstood the nature of the attorney's role in the collection of the alleged debt. 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants acted in individually and in concert, willfully, knowingly, intentionally and with disregard to the rights of Plaintiff, to misrepresent to the Plaintiff that there was some action that could be taken against her. 27. At all times pertinent hereto, the principles of respondent superior apply to this action. 28. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants were acting in cooperation, in concert and/or otherwise acting within the scope of such agency and/or representative capacity such that, joint and several liability applies to this action. 29. At no time during the telephone contacts did the Defendants inform Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCPA. 30. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant does not have a valid assignment and is therefore, unlawfully attempting to collect an alleged debt. 31. Plaintiff, by this writing, requests validation of the alleged debt. 32. 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 seg. 33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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). 37. 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). 38. 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. 39. 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 40. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 41. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq. 42. That defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by UTPCPL. 43. 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 SEO. 44. 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. 45. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 46. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 47. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(3). 48. Defendants contacted Plaintiff in October of 2008, which are "'communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). 49. At all pertinent times hereto, the Defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) by contacting a third party, Plaintiffs husband, without the Plaintiffs prior consent. 54. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the imminence of legal action by Defendants. 55. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(I 1) 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 communication and in subsequent communications. 56. 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. 57. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by demanding payment without providing the proper consumer warnings, thus, defendants overshadowed the FDCPA. 58. 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." 59. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f, by attempting to collect a time barred debt. 60. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f, by filing suit without proper legal authority over the Plaintiff. 61. Defendants obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff who never resided in Ohio and never received notice of said judgment or the revival thereof. 62. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) by using abusive language towards the Plaintiff and her husband. 63. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2) by communicating with third parties regarding the alleged debt, without the consent of the consumer. 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(5) and (10). Defendant violated these sections of the FDCPA. 65. Defendants 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 obtain a judgment against the Plaintiff. 66. Defendant law firm, violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by taking legal action against the Plaintiff without having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, without providing Plaintiff with notice of the Judgment and without providing Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the legal action taken against her. 67. threatening litigation when the threat of litigation was false, is time-barred, and more importantly, Plaintiff does not owe the alleged debt. 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), (5) and (10) by misrepresenting the legal status of the alleged debt. 73. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c by contacting the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant cease communication with the Plaintiff. 74. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g, by failing to give the required notices to the Plaintiff in the initial communication. 75. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(3) and (5) because no attorney was ever going to be involved in the collection of the alleged debt and no action was ever intended to be taken by the Defendants. 76. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, by sending attorney letters as such conduct would naturally harass and/or oppress the Plaintiff and/or the consumer. In this case, the alleged debt is time barred and no legal action could be taken. 77. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) by sending attorney letters which inherently threatened to take any action that cannot be legally taken or that is not intended to be taken. In this case, the alleged debt is time barred and no legal action could be taken. 78. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, by using attorney letterhead in order to add heightened urgency to the collection process. 79. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant attorneys did not afford her account individual review. Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003). 80. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Attorneys did not adhere to the requirements of their practice, in violation of the FDCPA. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). 81. At all times pertinent hereto, the initial communication was the attached and did not contain the valid FDCPA notices. 82. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was unable to dispute the alleged debt. 83. 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. 84. 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). 85. At all times pertinent times 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. 86. At all times pertinent times 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. 87. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made false threats of litigation. 88. Defendants' communications were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(5) and (10). 89. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that she would lose property or have her wages attached if settlement was not made. 90. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of Defendant rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 91. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 92. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 93. 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 him in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as the repetitive nature of Defendant form letters. C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $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: 1/26/09' By: /s/ ynn aracco Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive, Enola, PA 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com C) L F-i T, N Q N, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mary Lou Matsko Plaintiff, V. The Law Firm of William J. Urban, CO., LPA, and William J. Urban Jr., An individual debt collection attorney, Defendants. Civil Action No.: 09-418 VERIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, information given to me by the Plaintiff, under penalty of perjury, I hereby make this statement. ,Dated: 31310q gy;? R T .1 i- i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mary Lou Matsko Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No.: 2009-00418 The Law Firm of William J. Urban, CO., LPA, and William J. Urban Jr., An individual debt collection attorney, Defendants. PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE/WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Deanna Lynn Saracco, and files this Praecipe to Withdraw the above captioned matter, WITH prejudice as the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. This case should be discontinued and you may mark this case CLOSED. Respectfully submitted, ?r Dated:t Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 111 / 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, PA 17025 717-732-3750 RLI-°}-Ot FILE OF THE c"71-1' l,"NOTARY 2009 APP --7 {ail l : 30 CI1 J _. :;