Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-5441 (y( - 5r'll Ci \I i / IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Anthony Andrezeski Erford Road Camp Hill, P A Wolpoff & Ambramson, LLP Bruce H. Cherkis, Esquire 267 East Market Street, 1 st Floor York, PA 17403 Plaintiff( s) & Addresses Defendant(s) & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOT AR Y 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 ,J2j~ Signature of Attorney Supreme Court 10# 774]4 Dated: I" I,;,yl a 'I WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): Dated: /0 ' drg -0 <I YOll A!ill NOTlmOlHAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTlFF(S) I ~ Vii By: Q.L, .rm.J) iW'YJ eputy'- -. ~\) ~ (J 'd 0-01 ~ oJ C/ ~ - -f- Vl ~O ---- (P P I g (") o () C .!? "1:, "~- 'l,~q.:r ~p~i ~ 0,);, -" ',: -:--...~t) (^;P~r" V \<" i" ~;';:,.::" ~~ r;;g ~ ~ g :r! :Tl ;:; if co g4. 3? 90:~~~ ~ i1 N 'n "< ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5441 v. CIVIL ACTOIN WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection and BRUCE H. CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. 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, P A 1-800-990-9108,717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de est as demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso a natificacion y por cualquier queja a alivia que es pedida en la petician de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero a sc.s propiedades a otras derechas impartantes para usted. LLEVE E5TA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO 1MMED1ATAMENTE. 51 NO T1ENE ABOGADOO S1 NO T1ENE EL DINERO SUF1C1ENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1CION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFIC1NA CUYA D1RECC10N SE PUEDECONSEGU1R AS1STENCIA LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5441 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and BRUCE H. CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT COUNT I - PENNSYL VANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. 92270 et seq. 2. Violating provisions ofthe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. 92270.4(a). 3. 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 of37 Pa.Code 99303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. 9201-2(4). 4. 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. 5. 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 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 - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 6. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein. 7. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 D.S.C. ~1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 D.S.C. ~1692k(d) and 28 US.C. ~1337. 8. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 US.C. 1391(b). 9. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 US.C. ~ 1692a(6). 10. Defendant, WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP, (Hereinafter Defendant W&A) is a business entity(ies) engaged in the business of collecting debts within this Commonwealth via letters and telephone calls, with their principal place of business located at 702 King Farm Blvd, Rockville, Maryland, 20850-5775, also with offices located at 267 East Market Street, York, Pennsylvania. 11. Defendant, Bruce H. Cherkis, Esquire, (Hereinafter Defendant Cherkis) is an individual engaged in the business of debt collection within this Commonwealth, located in the Rockville, Maryland office. 12. Defendant W&A sent a letter to Plaintiff, dated June 17,2004, which is a "communication" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. sI692a(2) and ~1692a(5). 13. Defendant Cherkis purportedly signed the letter dated June 17,2004, which is a "communication" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. ~1692a(2) and ~1692a(5). 14. At all pertinent times hereto, defendants were hired to collect an alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 15. All 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. 16. Defendants letter contained false, misleading, deceptive and confusing statements which violated the FDCP A. 17. During the period between June 2004 and October 2004, agents of defendant W&A contacted Plaintiff about the alleged debt. 18. Plaintiff informed them that he offered a settlement to Kauffman's and that he disputed the alleged debt. 19. W &A' s agents ignored Plaintiff's dispute and continued to attempt to collect the alleged debt. 20. Further, the debt belonged to Plaintiff's mother and Plaintiff is not liable on the alleged debt. 21. On or about October 26, 2004, at 11 :02 a.m., Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant Cherkis, however, he was told that he was not permitted to talk to an attorney. 22. During the course of the conversation, the individual from W&A's office questions Plaintiff about the "Sears" account. Plaintiff answered, "No" as attorney Cherkis sent him a letter regarding the Kauffman's account and Plaintiff again asked to speak with Attorney Cherkis. 23. The individual from W&A's office then said to Plaintiff, "Attorney Cherkis does not handle letters. All he does is sign them. Attorney Cherkis does not speak with anyone and Attorney Cherkis will not call you." 24. Plaintiff asked three more times to speak with the attorney who sent him the letter, and each time, he was told that the individual would, "not let you speak with him." "'-- 25. Plaintiff asked for a supervisor and Mr. Freeman came on the telelphone. 26. Plaintiff again asked to speak with Attorney Cherkis because there was a settlement offer made to Kauffman's and Plaintiff wanted to discuss that settlement. 27. Mr. Freeman then said to Plaintiff, "You cannot talk to Attorney Cherkis about the letter. Attorney Cherkis did not personally send the letter. I (Mr. Freeman) am not going to let you talk to him. These are form letters and the attorneys do not handle calls." 28. Plaintiff left his telephone number, 717-732-4529 and asked if Attorney Cherkis could please call him back to discuss the Kauffman's settlement. 29. Mr. Freeman gave Plaintiff the following telephone number, 1-800-876-1204. 30. Plaintiff called the number and received a voice message indicating no one was available. 31. Around 11 :30 a.m., someone claiming to be from Attorney Cherkis' office contacted Plaintiffs mother and left Plaintiff a message. 32. Plaintiffs mother called him and Plaintiff tried calling back and again, received the voice message indicating no one was available. 33. On or about November 2,2004, at 6:00 p.m., someone claiming to be Attorney Cherkis contacted Plaintiff. 34. The conversation went as follows: Plaintiff, " Why did you send a collection letter in my name when 1 do not owe the money on the account." Individual purporting to be Cherkis, "{ don't remember sending you a letter." "Humor me, do you think I'm stupid? What exactly is your problem, do you think I am stupid, what is the file number." Plaintiff, "I don't have it in front of me right now, but you should be able to look it up." "Cherkis," The only account we have is for $3,600.00 for Sherman Acquisitions." Plaintiff, "Does that have your name on it?" "Cherkis," It doesn't matter, what about this account, What is your social security number?" Plaintiff, "I will not give out that information." "Cherkis," Never mind, I have it right here and it ends with 5865, are you done being smart with me." Plaintiff, "That is not part of my social security number." "Cherkis," I will put a cease and desist on this account." The individual purporting to be Cherkis hung up. 35. During the course of the conversation between Plaintiff and "Cherkis," Plaintiff realized that an attorney would not speak that rude and ignore the premise of the phone call, which was the fact that Plaintiff did not owe the alleged debt and that his mother had made a settlement with Kauffman's. 36. Defendants letter is clearly a form letter and contained no personal information to demonstrate it was written by an attorney. 37. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his mother only owes Kauffman's $80.00, as such, Defendants added unlawful fees, costs and/or interest charges in violation of the FDCP A. 38. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants use their status as attorneys to create a false sense of urgency on the part of the consumer. 39. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants use their status as attorneys to intimidate. harass and mislead consumers. 40. Defendants added unlawful fees, costs, interest and/or other amounts to the alleged debt, in violation of 15 U.S.c. 91692f(l) and 1692e(2)A and B. 41. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that attorneys are liable for their letters and telephone contacts. Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, (2nd Cir. 1992). 42. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that an attorney did not afford Plaintiffs account individual review, in violation of the FDCP A and Bitah v. Gobal Collection Serv., 1997 WL 369437. See also, Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222(7th Cir 1996.) See also, Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003). 43. Defendants' collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. S 1692e(5) and (10), S 1 692f(8) and S 1692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). 44. Plaintiff believe and therefore aver that an attorney did not afford Plaintiffs account individual review, in violation of the FDCPA and Bitah v. Gobal Collection Serv., 1997 WL 369437. See also, Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222(7th Cir 1996.) 45. Further, Defendants letter indicated that an attorney personally reviewed the case, however, unlawful fees, costs and/or interest was charged, in violation of the FDCP A. 46. Further, Defendants letter indicated that an attorney personally reviewed the case, however, Plaintiff was told he could not speak with the attorney who signed the letter when he contacted the offices of defendant W &A. 47. Defendants letter does not indicate that an attorney personally reviewed the letter, in violation of the FDCP A. 48. All of Defendants letters were form letters and contained no personal information to demonstrate they were written by an attorney or that an attorney had special knowledge of Plaintiff smatter. 49. Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCP A. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Sluys v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F. Supp 1 (D. Conn. 1989). 50. 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. 91692e(5), 15 U.S.c. S 1692e(1 0). 51. Defendants contacted Plaintiff and alleged that he owed the debt. 52. At all times pertinent hereto, defendants attempted to collect the alleged debt from Plaintiff. 53. Because Plaintiff does not owe the alleged debt and because the defendant discussed the alleged debt with him, defendant communicated with a third party about the alleged debt, in violation of the FDCP A. 54. Defendants' conduct rises to the level required for punitive damages due to the form and language of its notice and the continuous and repetitive nature of the violations under the FDCP A. 55. 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 defendants herein. 56. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the defendants as well as its 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. 57. As a result of defendants' intentional false, misleading, confusing and deceptive practices, Plaintiff suffered and is entitled to damages for emotional distress. 58. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 59. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 60. 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 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 FDCP A or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCPA. Kashak v. Raritan Valley Collection Agency, _F. Supp._(D.N.J. May 23, 1989), and Rabideau v. Management Adiustment Bureau, 805 F. Supp. 1086,1095 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (B) Award Plaintiff damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at Plaintiff in an amount not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). (C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of$350.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCP A, permitted by 15 U.S.C. S 1692k(a)(3). (D) Award Plaintiff damages for emotional distress in an amount of not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). (E) A ward declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. iQ7~... Dated: 1/505 By: '. f .-- \, Deanna Lynn aracco Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 SaraccoLaw@AOL.COM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No.: 04-5441 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection : and BRUCE H. CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and under penalty of perjury, hereby make this statement. Dated: ~ {. .-/ APt)b By:~8p~ Anthony B. AnClrezeski p r-,) r~..) 0 , c.::....;). C.J'" "TI ; '- :-;! :r;,~ -- , 2: nl :D r- - I -OfT'! , -.I ~;JQ ...:- ':'-~(':) .' ...,.., .- g;~ -- I, -. r::,> -; en -:c;! .-( TJ f'...) .< IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL.EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI., Plaintiff NO, : 04-5441 vs, CIVil ACTION - LAW WOlPOFF & ABRAMSON,llP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection And BRUCE H. CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. ANSWER AND NOW, TO WIT, this 10 day of February, 2005, come Defendants Wolpoff & Abramson, l,l.P. and Bruce H, Cherkis, Esquire by and through their attorneys, respond to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: COUNT 1 - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 1, Denied, The statements in paragraph 1 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied, The statements in paragraph 2 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied, The statements in paragraph 3 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 4, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 4, By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wron!ldoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 5, Denied, The statements in paragraph 5 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. The statements in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's complaint constitute an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Admitted. 8, Admitted, 9. Denied, Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that he is by definition an "individual and consumer" pursuant to 1!i U,S.C, 91692(a)(6), in actuality, subsection (a) Title 15. (3), not (a)(6) if 15 U,S,C. 91692 defines this designation, 10, Admitted in part, denied in part. Although it is admitted that Defendant Wolpoff and Abramson, L,L,P, has a Maryland office located in Rockville at 702 King Farm Blvd, its principal office in Pennsylvania is located in York Pennsylvania at 267 East Market Street. However, it is specifically denied that Defendant Wolpoff and Abramson, L.L.P is a debt collection business; it is a law firm in the practice of debt collection. 11, Denied. It is denied that Defendant Bruce H, Cherkis, Esquire is engaged in the business of debt collection; he is an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania, who practices debt collection law. 12, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 12. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 13, Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 14, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 15, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 15, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 16, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 12. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 17. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 18, Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 19, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 19. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 20, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient in1'ormation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 20. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 21. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 22, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 22. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 23. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 23, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 24. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 24. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 25. Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 25. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 26, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 26. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 27. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 28. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 28. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 29, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 29. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 30. Therefore, the same is alenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 31, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 31. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 32, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 33, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 33. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 34, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 34. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 35, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 35. 36, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 36. 37, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 37, By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 38, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient linformation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 38. By way of further reSpOnSE!, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 39. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 39, By way of further response, it is specifically denied that defendants have ever, within the course of their practice, used their status as attorneys to intimidate, harass, or mislead consumers, 40. The statements in paragraph 40 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41, Denied, The statements in paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied, The statements in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, By way of further response, any correspondence or legal action pertaining to any account handled by Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P, is fully and thoroughly reviewed by their attorneys. 43, Denied, The statements in paragraph 43 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extEint Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 44, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 44. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wron~Jdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 45, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of Ithe allegation contained in Paragraph 45. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 46. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 46. Therefore, the same is clenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 47, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 47, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 48, Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 48. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 49, Denied, The statements in paragraph 49 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 50, Denied, The statements in paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any correspondence or legal action pertaining to any account handled by Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. is fully and thoroughly reviewed by their attorneys. 51, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 51. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded attrial. 52, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 52. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 53, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient linformation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 53, Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 54. Denied. Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 54. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 55, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 55. Therefore, the same is (jenied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 56. Denied, Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 56. By way or further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 57, Denied, Defendants are without sufficient in"formation or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the allegation contained in Paragraph 57, By way or further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 58, Denied. The statements in paragraph 5e are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 59, Denied, The statements in paragraph 59 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, any and all allegations or insinuations by the Plaintiff of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants are hereby specifically denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 60, Denied, The statements in paragraph 60 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent Defendants are required to answer, the same is denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. New Matter 61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth, 62. If this Court were to find that the Defendants in any way violated the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (PFCEUA), 73 P.S, !l2270, et seq, when they communicated to Plaintiff, pursuant to !l 227.5 of the same, any such violations were unintentional, resulted from a bonafide error, or were a result of incorrect information, Therefore, Defendants are in no way liable under the PFCEUA for their acts or omissions, 63, If this Court were to find that the Defendants in any way violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCIPA), 15 U.S.C, 9 1692, et seq. when they communicated with Plaintiff, pursuant to 9 1692k(c) of the same, any such violations were unintentional and resulted from a bonafide error. Therefore, Defendants are in no way liable under the FDCPA for their acts or omissions. 64, Although not specified by Plaintiff, the relief sought by him in this action is limited to Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas arbitration limits, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Wolpoff & Abramson, L,L,P., and Bruce H. Cherkis, Esquire, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, Anthony Andrezeski. Respectfully submitted, Ronald S, Canter 10 No, 00 10 No, 89451 Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby state that they are the attorneys for the Defendants Wolpoff & Abramson, L,L,P, and Bruce H, Cherkis, Esquire. Since the Defendants are located outside of this jurisdiction, in order to file this responsive pleading in a timely manner, the undersi9ned is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said Defendants, and verifies the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, based upon information provided by the Defendants, The undersigned understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C.S, ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ronald S. Can er 4 Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI., Plaintiff NO. : 04-5441 vs. CIVil ACTION - LAW WOlPOFF & ABRAMSON,llP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection And BRUCE H. CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this \ 0 day of February 2005, I, Donald p, Shiffer III, Esquire, hereby certifies that the following persons WEire served with a true and correct copy of this Answer by United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: Deanna Saracco, Esquire 76 Greenmont Dr. Enola Pa 170252-643 Wolpoff & Abramson, llP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 267 East Market Street York, PA 17403 (717) 846-1252 Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYVvANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No,: 04-5441 Civil Action v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection: and BRUCE H, CHERKIS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 61. This paragraph contains a conclusion ofIaw to which no response is required, To the extent a response is required, it is hereby denied. 62. Denied. By way of further response, it is not an accident that the defendant caused 10,000 letters per week to be sent to all fifty states, there:by making it physically impossible for an attorney to conduct any type of review, and certainly making it impossible for an attorney to conduct an adequate review as required by the FDCP A, Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously use their status as attorneys to intimidate, threaten and harass consumers in order to force consumers to pay alleged debts. In this case, had an attorney actually reviewed P'IaintitI's account, helshe would have seen that Plaintiff does not owe the money, . Further, defendant, purporting to be a law firm, knowingly, purposefully, an intentionally informed Plaintiff that despite receiving a letter from an attorney, that defendant would NOT permit Plaintiff to speak with an attorney, 63. Denied, By way of further response, it is not an accident that the defendant caused 10,000 letters per week to be sent to all fifty states, thereby making it physically impossible for an attorney to conduct any type of review, and certainly making it impossible for an attorney to conduct an adequate review as required by the FDCP A. Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously use their status as attorneys to intimidate, threaten and harass consumers in order to force consumers to pay alleged debts. In this case, had an attorney actually reviewed Plaintiffs account, he/she would have seen that Plaintiff does not owe the money, Further, defendant, purporting to be a law firm, knowingly, purposefully, an intentionally infol1ned Plaintiff that despite receiving a letter from an attorney, that defendant would NOT permit Plaintiff to speak with an attorney. 64. Denied. Plaintiff requested relief in excess of the statutory amount for arbitration. By way of further response, the FDCP A is analogous to a tort as such, plaintiff seeks punitive damages. All acts done by defendant were willful, intentional and with reckless disregard to the rights of consumers. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court award Plaintiff an amount in excess of $35,000.00, plus attorney fees and costs as permitted by the federal and state statutes, Dated: 2/28/05 By: ~L;;P / alJQ Lawrence 1. Rosen( Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 1101 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 717-234-4583 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY ANDREZESKI, Plaintiff, No,: 04-5439 Civil Action v, WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection: and BRUCE H. CHERKlS, Esquire, Attorney in the Practice of Debt Collection Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Sen>ice I hereby certify that a true and correct copy was served on defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, Philip Warholic, via U,S, First Class Mail as follows: Donald p, Shiffer, III Wolpoff & Abramson 267 East Market Street York,PA17403 Dated: 2/28/05 By: 7 ;. i.. /tUg9' Lawrence J. R6sen, Esquire SHERIFF' S RET1~RN -. OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-05441 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ANDREZESKI ANTHONY VS WOLPOFF & AMBRAMSON LLP R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who bing duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent searc and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: WOLPOFF & AMBRAMSON LLP but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefor deputized the sheriff of YORK County, pennsylvani , to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On March 14th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of t e attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep York County Postage 18.00 9.00 10.00 21.62 .74 59.36 03/14/2005 DEANNA LYNN So answe / /. ~../ / ';~.Y~~~"-" R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County .../ SARACCO Sworn and subscribed to before me this .;l..t day of~t d( d;)r>J.-/' A. D. --4.e.j).~~~) ..~ (j / . !~th;;-n'Jary ~ COUltTY OF" YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF SER ICE CALL (7\ ) 77\-9601 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 3 OEFENDANTfSl Anthony Andrezeski Wolpoff & Abramson LLP 2 C8URT NUMBER 4-5441 <JLil 4_ TYPE OF WRIT OR COMP Notice and Canp aint 1 THRU 12 COPES SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN INSTRUCTIO PLEASE TYPE 0Nl. Y DO NOT DETACH AN 1 PLAINTIFF/S! .E { AT 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC_ TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED. A ACHED. OR SOLO Wolpoff & Abramson LLP 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO VV1TH BOX NUMBER. APT NO_. CITY. BORD, TVI/P, STATE AND ZIP CODE) 267 East Market Street 1st floor York, PA 17403 7 INDICATE SERV1CE Q PERSONAL [) PERSON IN CHARGE DEPUTIZE U 1ST CLASS MAil U PO TED U OTHER _ January , 20 I, SHERIFF OF YRlI COUNTY,. PI\,{jo hereby dep lize lhe sheriff of York COUNTY 10 execul~c{lI;l~,retum l.!<lccording 10 law. This depulizalion being made allhe request and risk of the plaintiff :r . ......~.- ." SHERIFF OF _ COU TY Cumb.e:r:,l,-and O. 'U.Vf'l OUT ,-1<" l~._~ ctJnnl~nLfND NOW 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER IN FORMA TlON THAT Will ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE Please mail return of service to Cunberland County Sheriff. Thank you. hDVl'J1C:: FE;~ PD BY 1{,%:'IXXX .sH~::r~::FF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under ithin wnt may leave same without a walchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession. after notifying person of levy or at1achment. without liability on the part of such deputy the sheriff to any plaintiff herein '01 any loss, destruction. or removal of any property before sherdf's sale Ihereof ' 9 TY~JE~ ~~~r~~ A~~!:t~,~(~~.~rO~~)EY h~~~~~.!~f)1?0 rr1,s'7.~t~URE EN 0 1.,/\ , 2,\ 1 70? S 11. ~T7 ~ltfg CULLJE~"~L/~~U) CO ,(~l! :,',," ',:'f 15. e~raJionfHeJ'lring Date /.-0-0) 12 SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COpy TO NAME AND ADDRESS BelOW (ThiS area must be complete<! if notice is to be mailed) SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERFF - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS 13 I acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATERECEfVEO 01 complaint as indicated above ;. /',II~;. T~iJ S 'J. - :' .2".0.. 16. HOW SERVED (J PERSONAL .l>< RESIDENCE I ) POSTED I POE I ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER I ) 'Iy and return a NOT FOUND because r am unable 10 locate the individual. company. etc, named above, (See remarits below.) TL F DUAL SERVED I LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship 10 Defendant) 19. Date of elVice 20 Time of Service 1-2{- :;;-- /O~fY' SEE REMARKS BElO\ 21 A EMPTS Int 22 REMARKS 4Jl4Y r. 1:h'Yt.~ CSQ(lcn& ~ 14t2-hldl'?-; .HP/NA4?.z::;/llfj (I ".,.. Oft,j'te4 IcoNs;. "\ 1) . ") (...../ O+V \ 3)r1~ 23. Advance Costs 10U.()() 33 Costs .2..~..?" Refund hee' 7'0:3~ ~. 3 40. Costs Due or Relunc 41. AfFIRMED and subscnbed to <42 daVof FE;"i. ,2~ 5 43 . /1#, Y 44. Signature of Oep,Shemf 46. Signature of York CounlY Sheriff I l'T 1,-1',. , ,J.. ." J. ..11 l1. rr:O:)~~ ?~ 1 /;.- 49 DATE 48 Signature of Foreign County Shenff 50. I ACKNOWlEDGE RECEIPT Of THE SHERIFF'S RETURN SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHOR!TY ANO TITLE Nota; ':'~edr James V. Vangn>::n. Notary Public City of York, Ycrk County, PA My Commission': es Mar. 21, 2005 DATE RECEIVED ,. \NHITE -1$SuingAuthority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - SheriJrs Office 4. BLUE - She"", Office APR-19-05 04:27 PM DEANNA~LYNN~SMITH~ESQ 7177289498 P~02 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANT~ONY ANDREZESKI. l Plaintiff, I , WOL~OFF & ABRAMSON, LLP : Attomhs in the Practice of Debt Collection : and B1~.uCE H, CHERKIS, Esquire, : Attornh in the Practice of Debt Collection : Dcfendants. No,: 04-5441 v, Without Prejudice STlPliLATlON OF DISMISSAL 'AND NOW comes. Attorneys DCani13 Lynn Saracco and Lawretlce J, Rosen, for PlaintilT, along With Ronald S Canter, Esquire, for Del'endunt and files this Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice in the above referenced matter. , Respeclfully submitted, I , Respectfully submitted. ~ Deann Lynn Saracco Lawrence .T. Rosen AtlOnltl s for Plaintiff 76 Gre .nmon! Drive Enola, . A 17025 (7J 7)7~2-3750 Rona d S Canter, Esquire If tJ'fN!;;> Wolpofl"& Abramson 26 East Market Street York, PA 17403 717-843-0973 Attorney for Defendant Dated: ;4/20/05 Dated: r~A" I {) s~ --cu me; , '-7.-\ ~:"7 ~. 0}:; ~/~ . G.;( Y'C 3 <-' ~ ~ :::0 N C" o -01 .-\ :!;-n. n7lF- -(1('(' :01 -'~" '...J: " .._j ..J 1'1:,:11 ':;:<;'.( ) ~<~ rn ';:~ ",:.-- :r:l -~ -0 :>> ~ a1 N -