Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3785 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NEFRETIRI OKALA BEL TON, Plaintiff, v. : Civil Action No: DS; - 31PS (!/C..l~ L ~VL/ ERIC M. BERMAN, P.c., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. 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 twentv (20) davs 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 dernandado a usted en 1a corte. Si usted quire defenderse de estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza a1 partir de 1a fecha de 1a excrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en 1a corte en forma excrita sus defe~sas 0 5US objectiones alas demande, 1a corte tomara medidas y puede entrar UGa orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio gue as pedido en 1a peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 SUS propiedades 0 otros derechos import antes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO 1MMEDIATAMENTE. S1 NO T1ENE ABOGADOO SI NO TIENE EL D1NERO SUFICIENTE DE P}\GAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA onCINA CUYA D1RECC10N SE POEDECONSEGIJIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NEFRETIRI OKALA BEL TON, Plaintiff: /7_' 0 .., ... : Civil Action No: 05 - 31 g,:;- ~ ....uz...v",-- v. ERIC M. BERMAN, P_c., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT I. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. 92270 et seq. 2. Defendant Eric M. Berman is an individual attorney and debt collector engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 198 Allendale Road, Sujite 306, King of Prussia, P A 19406. 3. Defendant Eric M_ Berman P.c., is a debt collection law fir/m/business entity engaged in the business of collection debts within this Commonwealth via letter and telephone calls, with an office in Pennsylvania, listed above, and its main office located at 500 W. Main Street, Suite 212, Babylon, NY 1\702.3035. 4. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. 92270.4(a). 5. 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 of37 Pa.Code 99303_3(3), 303_3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. 9201-2(4). 6. 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. 7. 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 her behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. S2270.5. COUNT 1I - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 8. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C SI692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C SI692k(d) and 28 U.S.C S1337. 9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1391(b), 10. A single collection call or letter can be a tortious act giving rise to both jurisdiction and venue. Norton v. Local Loan, 251 N.W. 2d 520 (Iowa 1977). II. Each transmission of an erroneous report is a separate and distinct tort for purposes of a claim for damages Hvde v, Hibernia National Bank, 861 F. 2d 446 (5'h Cir 1988). 12. The place of the tort is where the contact was received, Burt v. Board of Regents, 757 F.2d lOth Cir 1985). 13, The tortious act occurred where the person read the single, fraudulent letter sent into the state; no tortious act would have occurred if the letter had not reached its target. Polish v. Threshold Technology Inc. 340 N.Y.S. 2d 1974 (Sup. Ct. 1974), 14. Even a single act can be a sufficient basis forjurisdiction under the Constitution. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927). 15. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendant purposefully directed activity toward Pennsylvania such that he/she could reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. Johnson Controls Inc. v. Irving Rubber & Metal Co.. Inc., 920 F. Supp 612 (M.D. Pa. 1996.) 16. Jurisdiction (and thus venue) can be based on mail or telephone communication directed into the forum. OiMark Marketing Inc. v. Louisiana Health Services and Indemnitv Co., 913 F. Supp 402 (E.O. Pa. 1996.) 17. This Honorable Court can obtain personal jurisdiction (and thus Venue) over a defendant even if he/she claims to never have been to Pennsylvania, Servistar Com. v. Home Hardware Co., 96 B.R. 593 (W.O. Pa. 1989). 18. Under Pennsylvania law, defendants' tortious activity is sufficient to exercise jurisdiction and venue over the individual pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. ~5322(4) or 42 Pa.C.S. ~5322(a)(I) or (ii) because defendant initiated an act directed collection conduct towards Pennsylvania for pecuniary gain. 19. Violating the FOCP A is analogous to committing a tort because the FOCP A is partly a codification of tort law and because a violation affecting a state resident within the state creates a cause of action within the meaning of such a statute. Lachman v. Bank of La., 510 F. Supp. 753, 760 (N.O.Ohio 198\.) 20. It is axiomatic that a Plaintiffs choice of forum is to be accommodated because venue is a procedural rule of convenience and the convenience of the aggrieved party should be first accommodated. Gardner Engineering Com. v. Page Engineering Co., 484 F. 2d 27 (C.A. 8 ARK 1973.) 21. The convenience of the defendant does not justify the transfer of venue when the effect of the transfer will be merely to shift the burden of inconvenience from one party to another. Medical Assur. Co. of Mississippi v. .Iackons, 864 F. Supp. 576, (S.D. Miss. 1994) See also, Burstein v. Aoolied Extrusion Technologies Inc., 829 F. Supp. 106 (D. Del. ] 992.) 22. Since Defendant Eric Berman and his law firm, Eric M. Berman, P.c. purposefully contacted Plaintiff~ and her friend, knowing that Plaintiff and her friend were located within this Commonwealth. then it is reasonable, foreseeable and understandable that both defendants Berman as an individual and Eric M. Berman, P.C., can be sued in Pennsylvania. 23. Since Eric Berman presumably directs and controls the collection practices of Defendant Eric M. Berman, P.C., he can be sued in Pennsylvania. 24. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 V.S.C. sI692a(3). 25. 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 plaintiffs alleged and disputed debt. 26. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 V.S.C. S I 692a(6). 27. The telephone calls made by agents of Eric M. Berman. P.c., are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 V.S.c. S] 692a(2) and S I 692a(5). 28. At all pertinent times hereto, defendants were hired to collect an alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 29. On or about January 2005, Mr. King, purporting to be from the law firm of Eric Berman, called Plaintiff at her place of employment. 30. Plaintiff is not permitted to receive personal telephone calls at work. 31. Mr. King advised Plaintiff that if she did not pay the full amount immediately, the law firm would obtain a subpoena and send the sheriff to my office. 32. Plaintiff intormed Mr. King that she could not pay and offered to set up a payment plan. 33. Mr. King advised Plaintiff that her payment plan was unacceptable and told her to borrow the money from some other source. 34. Plaintiff told Mr. King that she could not be contacted at work at which time, Mr. King advised her that she should call back immediately, because all the law firm was waiting for was a phone call trom him that she refused to pay and the law firm would obtain the subpoena. 35. Plaintiff reminded him she did not refuse to pay, she could not afford to pay the amount he was asking for, given the additional interest and late penalties, and that she would send partial payments. 36. Mr. King told Plaintiff her partial payments were unacceptable. 37. Plaintiff was very upset at the thought of the sheritf coming to get her, so she called her friend. 38. Mr. Rogers, Plaintiffs friend, was upset to hear that a subpoena would be issued to take Plaintiff so he asked for the telephone number and he called for Mr. King. 39. Mr. King called Mr. Rogers, at which time, Mr. Rogers told Mr. King he was concerned that the law firm would be obtaining a subpoena and "pick up" Plaintiff 40. Mr. Rogers then explained Plaintiffs debt problems to Mr. Rogers. 41. At no time did Mr. King contact Plaintiff to request permission to discuss the alleged debt with Mr. Rogers. 42. Mr. Rogers told Mr. King that Plaintiff could make payments, however, Mr. King advised Mr. Rogers that the payments were unacceptable. 43. Mr. King then told Mr. Rogers that he would proceed with legal action and obtain the subpoena. 44. Plaintiff sought legal assistance in fear that the defendants would obtain a subpoena and "pick her up." 45. Plaintitf owes approximately $1,500.00 on a discover card, however, the balance, according to the defendant, is close to $3.000.00, due to interest, fees and costs. 46. Courts have held that the threat of litigation is present simply because the letter comes from an attorney; the letter need not explicitly threaten suit. Crossley v. Lieberman. 868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). United States v. Central Adiustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370, 397 (N.D. Tex. 1986). 47. In this case, the telephone call came from an attorney's office and the agent did in fact, state that he worked for the law firm and would obtain a subpoena and send the sheriff to "pick up" Plaintiff. 48. An attorney's interstate collection contact must avoid misrepresenting the attorney's authority to sue where he or she is not admitted to practice. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). 49. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants Eric Berman and Eric M. Berman, P.C., acted in concert in order to mislead, contuse and deceive the Plaintiff as well as the least sophisticated consumer. 50. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant used its status as an attorney not in connection with the practice of law, but rather as a debt collector for the sole purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff, as such, overshadowed the FDCP A. 9] 692g. 51. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U .S.c. ~ I 692f. Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant added interest, fees and/or costs, in violation of state and federal law. 53. Defendant in its collection etforts, demanded interest, fees and/or costs in violation of the FDCPA, 15 D.S.C. ~1692f(l) and 1 692e(2)A and B. 54. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the toregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (I) The collection of nay amount (including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 15 U.s.e. ~ I 692f( 1). 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. Without limiting the general application of the toregoing, the following is a violation of this section, (2) The false representation of (A) the character, amount or legal status of any debt, or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. 15 U .S.e. ~ I 692e(2)A and B. 56. There was never an express agreement by Plaintiffto pay any additional fees 57. 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. ~ l692e. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 58. The FDCP A 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 ofa debt. 15 U.S.C. S 1692d. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 59. 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. S I 692c(b). Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 60. The FDCP A states, it is unlawful to design, compile and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false believe in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. 15 U .S.c. S 1692j. Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 61. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that an attorney did not afford her account individual review, in violation of the FDCP A. 62. The FDCP A provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. S 1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 63. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs. in violation of 15 U .S.C. S I 692e(5) and (10), SI692f(8) and SI692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). 64. Defendant's telephone communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Sluvs v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gavnor, 784 F. Supp ] (D. Conn. 1989). 65. Any threat of litigation is false if the detendant rarely. sues consumer debtors or if the defendant did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bentlv v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S.C. sI692e(5), 15 U.S.c. sI692e(10). 66. The telephone call was the initial contact and at no time did defendant advise Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCP A, as such, Defendant violated 15 U.S. C. S1692g. 67. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.c. s1692n. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. S73ll: "Unlawtul collection agency practices. (a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful for a collection agency, for the purpose of collecting or enforcing the payment thereot~ to take an assignment of any such claim from a creditor, if all of the following apply: I. The assignment between the creditors and collection agency is in writing; 2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit assignments. 3. The collection agency complies with the act of December 17, 1968... (b. I )Unfair or deceptive methods. [t is unlawful for a collector to collect any amount, including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal obligation, unless such amount is expressly provided in the agreement creating the debt or is permitted by law." 68. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants charged interest, fees and costs in violation of the both the FDCP A and Pennsylvania law. 69. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants do not have the proper written assignments as required by Pennsylvania law. 70. 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. 71. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of detendanta 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 PlaintitT herein. 72. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants' agents made false threats of litigation. 73. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendants does not routinely tile suit against consumer debtors, in violation of IS U.S.C. s] 692e(5) and (10). 74. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 1l.S.C. S 1692e(5) and (10), S J 692f(8) and S 1692j. 75. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation, or something more serious, was imminent if settlement was not made. 76. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 77. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 78. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff 79. 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 her behalf and against defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintitt statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) tor each violation of the FDCP A or each separate and discrete incident in which defendants have violated the FDCP A and for which Plaintiff could have filed a separate action but consolidated her claims for judicial economy. (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 defendants form letters. <1:)) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $350.00lhour.for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by IS U.S.C. ~ I 692k(a)(3). (D) A ward declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. COUNT III - CLASS ACTION 80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 82. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 23, permits a class action if certain criteria are met. 83. The FDCPA pelmits class action, ] 5 U.S.c. ~1692k(a)(2)(B). 84. In this case, defendants threatened to obtain a subpoena. added interest, fees and costs in violation of state and federal law, threatened legal action and refused to accept Plaintiffs partial payments, in violation of the FDCPA. 85. In this case, defendants' agent discussed Plaintiffs alleged debt with a third party, without the consent of Plaintiff. 86. This action seeks a declaration that defendants' collection practices violated the FDCPA. 87. The Class consists of all persons who received telephone calls whereby the agent threatened to obtain a subpoena and/or discussed the alleged debt with third parties without consent. 88. The Class consists of all persons whereby detendants added interest, fees and/or costs, in violation of state and federal law. 89. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 90. It is unknown how many telephone contact were made by defendants, as such, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the number exceeds 100 persons. 91. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class. 92. This Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 93. The prosecution of separate action by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to the interests of the other members of the Class would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Defendants acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole that warrants declaratory relief 94. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequate protect and represent the interests of the Class. The management ofthe Class action proposed is not extraordinarily difficult and the factual and legal issues raised will not require extended contact with the members of the Class because defendants' conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by common proof Plaintiffs counsel, attorneys Saracco and Rosen, participated as attorneys in class actions brought pursuant to the FDCP A. 95. Given the nature of defendants' practices, it is likely that other consumers in Pennsylvania have been harmed by these practices. 96. The law firm ofKrevsky & Rosen, located at 1101 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, have agreed to enter its appearance as co-counsel to ensure that Plaintiff s counsel will have adequate resources to represent the class. 97. This action could be handled as a no-notice class, and is superior to the alternative, hundreds of Pennsylvania residents filing separate FDCP A actions. 98. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court consider the frequency and persistence of defendants' non-compliance, the nature of defendants' non-compliance, and the obvious intentional nature of the defendants by failing to verify whether the collection amount is valid, as required by Pennsylvania law and whether the statute of limitations expired. 99. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court certify the class and award such amount for each named Plaintiff, $1,000.00, plus such amount as this Honorable Court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum of $500,000.00 or one percent of the net wroth of the debt collector, and attorney fees of$350.00 per hour, and costs as reasonably determined by this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrespectfully requests that this Honorable Court a. CertifY the class, b. Appoint Plaintiff to represent the members of the class, c. Appoint Deanna Lynn Saracco and the law firm of Krevsky & Rosen as counsel for the class, d. Declare that defendants's collection practices violated the FDCPA. e. Declare that defendants' practices of adding unlawful collection fees violated Pennsylvania law and the FDCP A, f. Enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against Defendants, for statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees in the amount of$350.00 per hour, g. Grant such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.~. . Dated: 7/2!/05 By: /slDeanna Lvnn Saracco L I. . Deanna Lynn Saracco .' ~ Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com o ~ ~ r:t .~ ;;~ ........ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1:- o -.,1 ..--( c~: =y_ (.l f',,:. Go :::: - r.o ~ l.. . 0.(~! G IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NEFRETIRI OKALA BEL TON, Plaintitl: : Civil Action No: 05-3785 CIVIL TERM v. ERIC M. BERMAN, P.c., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, by and through her attorney. Deanna Lynn Saracco, and files this Praecipe to Reinstate the Complaint. Plaintiff diligently gave defendant an opportunity to accept service and then sent the Sheriff to Defendant's Pennsylvania address, wherein, the defendant does not exist. Defendant is located in New York state. as such, Plaintiff will serve the Complaint. by Sheriff in New York. Dated: 9/26/05 By: Deanna Lynn Saracco Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola. Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com ~. ~ ~ (/> f""'. -.:l N 0.... \~- ~ -I-rj 4- 0<;;; ~O ;::).(~) ~"'C, ~-c -..J (1Cf; -{~\' , "51 .- "P' :;.'!C C2 o N SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT SERVED CASE NO: 2005-03785 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BELTON NEFRETIRI OKALA VS BERMAN ERIC M P C ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: BERMAN ERIC M ESQUIRE but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the COMPLAINT & NOTICE NOT SERVED , as to the within named DEFENDANT , BERMAN ERIC M ESQUIRE 198 ALLENDALE ROAD SUITE 306 KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 COMPLAINT IS EXPIRED. WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THROUGH TO CALL ATTORNEY. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 .00 .37 10.00 .00 28.37 So answer~-.:-:::-/ /) '. >--~=-__/~ ..--b--r':;;;;;:-:/~~-- -~.~::::.. -;?'-~-~ . R. Thomas Kli - Sheriff of Cumberland County DEANNA LYNN SARACCO 09/20/2005 Sworn and subscribed to before me this .)~ dJJ(J,') day of ~ A.D(!~(~ / 7 Prothonotary/' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL VANIA NEFRETIRI OKALA BELTON, Plaintiff, : Civil Action No: D~ - 3"lPS Cic>LT~ v. ~.~)I ',.~-' --, ERIC M. BERMAN, P.C., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual, ~ -,- I f'J. c. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. Defendants. f","' NOTICE TO PLEAD l- 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 estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientesr usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de 1a fecha de la excrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en Ia corte en forma excrita sus defensas 0 5US objectiones alas demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted si~ previa aviso 0 notificacion y par cualquier gueja 0 alivia que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 5US prop~edades 0 otros derechos i:T.?ortantes para ust.ed. LLE\'S ES'I'A DEMANDA A UN ?BOGADD I!VlMEDIATAlv1ENTE. 51 NO TIS:-.:E J:.30Gl\DOS 5::: NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 ~~AME POR TELErONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGlJIR ASISENCU\ LEG.",L. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NEFRETIRI OKALA BELTON, Plaintiff, : Civil Action No: v. ERIC M. BERMAN, P.c., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT COUNT I - PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniforn1ity Act, 73 P.S. 92270 et seq. 2. Defendant Eric M. Berman is an individual attorney and debt collector engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 198 Allendale Road, Sujite 306, King of Prussia, PA 19406. 3. Defendant Eric M. Berman P.C., is a debt collection law fir/m/business entity engaged in the business of collection debts within this Commonwealth via letter and telephone calls, with an office in Pennsylvania, listed above, and its main office located at 500 W. Main Street Suite 212, Babylon, NY 11702-3035. 4. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. 92270.4(a). 5. 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 of37 Pa.Code 99303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. 9201-2(4). 6. 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. 7. 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 her behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P .S. S2270.5. COUNT II - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 8. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. S1692, et seq. ("FDCP A"), particularly 15 U.S.C. S 1 692k(d) and 28 U.S.c. S1337. 9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 10. A single collection call or letter can be a tortious act giving rise to both jurisdiction and venue. N0l1on v. Local Loan, 251 N. W. 2d 520 (Iowa 1977). 11. Each transmission of an en.oneous rep0l1 is a separate and distinct tort for purposes of a claim for damages Hvde v. Hibernia National Bank, 861 F. 2d 446 (5'h Cir 1988). 12. The place of the t0l1 is where the contact was received. Burt v. Board of Regents, 757 F.2d 10th Cir 1985). 13. The tortious act occurred where the person read the single, fraudulent letter sent into the state; no tortious act would have occurred if the letter had not reached its target. Polish v. Threshold Technologv Inc. 340 N.Y.S. 2d 1974 (Sup. Ct. 1974). 14. Even a single act can be a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under the Constitution. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927). 15. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendant purposefully directed activity toward Pennsylvania such that he/she could reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. Johnson Controls Inc. v. Irving Rubber & Metal Co.. Inc., 920 F. Supp 612 (M.D. Pa. 1996.) 16. Jurisdiction (and thus venue) can be based on mail or telephone communication directed into the forum. DiMark Marketing Inc. v. Louisiana Health Services and Indemnity Co., 913 F. Supp 402 (E.D. Pa. 1996.) 17. This Honorable Court can obtain personal jurisdiction (and thus Venue) over a defendant even if he/she claims to never have been to Pennsylvania, Servistar Com. v. Home Hardware Co., 96 B.R. 593 (W.O. Pa. 1989). 18. Under Pennsylvania law, defendants' tortious activity is sufficient to exercise jurisdiction and venue over the individual pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 95322(4) or 42 Pa.C.S. 95322(a)(I) or (ii) because defendant initiated an act directed collection conduct towards Pelllisylvania for pecunialY gain. 19. Violating the FDCPA is analogous to committing a tort because the FDCPA is partly a codification of tort law and because a violation affecting a state resident within the state creates a cause of action within the meaning of such a statute. Lachman v. Bank of La., 510 F. Supp. 753, 760 (N.D.Ohio 1981.) 20. It is axiomatic that a Plaintiffs choice of forum is to be accommodated because venue is a procedural rule of convenience and the convenience of the aggrieved party should be first accommodated. Gardner Engineering Corp. v. Page Engineering Co., 484 F. 2d 27 (C.A. 8 ARK 1973.) 21. The convenience of the defendant does not justify the transfer of venue when the effect of the transfer will be merely to shift the burden of inconvenience from one party to another. Medical Assur. Co. ofMississiDDi v. .Iackons, 864 F. Supp. 576, (S.D. Miss. 1994) See also, Burstein v. Apolied Extrusion Technologies Inc., 829 F. Supp. 106 (D. Del. 1992.) 22. Since Defendant Eric Berman and his law firm, Eric M. Berman, P.C: purposefully contacted Plaintiff, and her friend, knowing that Plaintiff and her friend were located within this Commonwealth, then it is reasonable, foreseeable and understandable that both defendants Bernlan as an individual and Eric M. Berman, P.C., can be sued in Pennsylvania. 23. Since Eric Berman presumably directs and controls the collection practices of Defendant Eric M. Berman, P.C., he can be sued in Pennsylvania. 24. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. S I 692a(3). 25. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection effOlis, by letters, telephone contact or other documents, with regard to plaintiffs alleged and disputed debt. 26. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. S I 692a(6). 27. The telephone calls made by agents of Eric M. Berman, P.C., are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.c. sI692a(2) and sI692a(5). 28. At all pertinent times hereto, defendants were hired to collect an alleged debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 29. On or about January 2005, Mr. King, purporting to be from the law firm of Eric Belman, called Plaintiff at her place of employment. 30. Plaintiff is not permitted to receive personal telephone calls at work. 31. Mr. King advised Plaintiff that if she did not pay the full amount immediately, the law firm would obtain a subpoena and send the sheriff to my office. 32. Plaintiff informed Mr. King that she could not pay and offered to set up a payment plan. 33. Mr. King advised Plaintiff that her payment plan was unacceptable and told her to borrow the money from some other source. 34. Plaintiff told Mr. King that she could not be contacted at work at which time, Mr. King advised her that she should call back immediately, because all the law firm was waiting for was a phone call from him that she refused to pay and the law firm would obtain the subpoena. 35. Plaintiff reminded him she did not refuse to pay, she could not afford to pay the amount he was asking for, given the additional interest and late penalties, and that she would send partial payments. 36. Mr. King told Plaintiff her partial payments were unacceptable. 37. Plaintiff was very upset at the thought of the sheriff coming to get her, so she called her friend. 38. Mr. Rogers, Plaintiffs friend, was upset to hear that a subpoena would be issued to take Plaintiff so he asked for the telephone number and he called for Mr. King. 39. Mr. King called Mr. Rogers, at which time, Mr. Rogers told Mr. King he was concerned that the law firm would be obtaining a subpoena and "pick up" Plaintiff. 40. Mr. Rogers then eXplained Plaintiffs debt problems to Mr. Rogers. 41. At no time did Mr. King contact Plaintiff to request permission to discuss the alleged debt with Mr. Rogers. 42. Mr. Rogers told Mr. King that Plaintiff could make payments. however, Mr. King advised Mr. Rogers that the payments were unacceptable. 43. Mr. King then told Mr. Rogers that he would proceed with legal action and obtain the subpoena. 44. Plaintiff sought legal assistance in fear that the defendants would obtain a subpoena and "pick her up." 45. Plaintiff owes approximately $1,500.00 on a discover card, however, the balance, according to the defendant, is close to $3,000.00, due to interest, fees and costs. 46. Courts have held that the threat of litigation is present simply because the letter comes from an attorney; the letter need not explicitly threaten suit. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). United States v. Central Adiustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370, 397 (N.D. Tex. 1986). 47. In this case, the telephone call came from an attorney's office and the agent did in fact, state that he worked for the law firm and would obtain a subpoena and send the sheriff to "pick up" Plaintiff. 48. An attorney's interstate collection contact must avoid misrepresenting the attorney's authority to sue where he or she is not admitted to practice. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989). 49. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants Eric Berman and Eric M. Berman, P.c., acted in concert in order to mislead, confuse and deceive the Plaintiff as well as the least sophisticated consumer. 50. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant used its status as an attorney not in cOlmection with the practice of law, but rather as a debt collector for the sole purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff, as such. overshadowed the FDCP A. ~ I 692g. 51. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 V.S.C. S 1692f. Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant added interest, fees and/or costs, in violation of state and federal law. 53. Defendant in its collection efforts, demanded interest, fees and/or costs in violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. S1692f(l) and I 692e(2)A and B. 54. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (I) The collection of nay amount (including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 15 U.S.C. S1692f(l). 55. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following is a violation of this section, (2) The false representation of (A) the character, amount or legal status of any debt, or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.c. S I 692e(2)A and B. 56. There was never an express agreement by Plaintiffto pay any additional fees 57. The FDCP A 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. S 1692e. Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 58. The FDCP A 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 ofa debt. IS U.S.C. S I 692d. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 59. The FDCP A 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. S I 692c(b ). Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 60. The FDCP A states, it is unlawful to design, compile and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false believe in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating. 15 U.S.C. S 1692j. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 61. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that an attorney did not afford her account individual review, in violation of the FDCP A. 62. The FDCP A provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the alleged debt 15 U.S.c. SI692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 63. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 D.S.C. ~1692e(5) and (10), SI692f(8) and ~1692.i. see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). 64. Defendant's telephone communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. III. 1993): Sluvs v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N. Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gavnor, 784 F. Supp 1 (D. Conn. 1989). 65. Any threat oflitigation is false if the defendant rarely. sues consumer debtors or if the defendant did not intend to sue the Plaintiff. Bently v. Great Lakcs Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1998). See also, 15 U.S.C. sI692e(5). 15 U.S.C. S 1692e(IO). 66. The telephone call was the initial contact and at no time did defendant advise Plaintiff of her rights under the FDCP A, as such, Defendant violated 15 U.S. C. S I 692g. 67. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. s1692n. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. S 73 I I: "Unlawful collection agency practices. (a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful for a collection agency, for the purpose of collecting or enforcing the payment thereof, to take an assignment of any such claim from a creditor, if all of the following apply: 1. The assignment between the creditors and collection agency is in writing; 2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit assignments. 3. The collection agency complies with the act of December 17,1968... (b.t )Unfair or deceptive methods. It is unlawful for a collector to collect any amount, including any interest, fee, charge or expense incidental to the principal obligation, unless such amount is expressly provided in the agreement creating the debt or is permitted by law." 68. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants charged interest, fees and costs in violation of the both the FDCPA and Pennsylvania law. 69. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants do not have the proper written assignments as required by Pennsylvania law. 70. 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. 71. At all times pertinent hereto. the conduct of defendanta 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. 72. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendants' agents made false threats of litigation. 73. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendants does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. !i I 692e(5) and (10). 74. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.c. !i1692e(5) and (10), !i1692f(8) and !i1692j. 75. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation, or something more serious, was imminent if settlement was not made. 76. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 77. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and/or n. 78. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintiff. 79. 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 her 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 FDCP A and for which Plaintiff could have filed a separate action but consolidated her claims for judicial economy. (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 defendants form letters. (9) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation, including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of $350.00/hourJor hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights under the FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.C. S 1692k(a)(3). (D) A ward declaratory and injunctive relief. and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. COUNT Ill- CLASS ACTION 80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein. 82. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 23, permits a class action if certain criteria are met. 83. The FDCPA permits class action, 15 U.S.C. SI692k(a)(2)(B). 84. In this case, defendants threatened to obtain a subpoena, added interest, fees and costs in violation of state and federal law, threatened legal action and refused to accept Plaintiffs partial payments, in violation of the FDCPA. 85. In this case, defendants' agent discussed Plaintiffs alleged debt with a third party, without the consent of Plaintiff. 86. This action seeks a declaration that defendants' collection practices violated the FDCP A. 87. The Class consists of all persons who received telephone calls whereby the agent threatened to obtain a subpoena and/or discussed the alleged debt with third parties without consent. 88. The Class consists of all persons whereby defendants added interest, fees and/or costs, in violation of state and federal law. 89. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 90. It is unknown how many telephone contact were made by defendants', as such, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the number exceeds 100 persons. 91. Common relief is therefore sought on behalfofall members of the Class. 92. This Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 93. The prosecution of separate action by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to the interests of the other members of the Class would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class not party to the adjudication or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Defendants acted in a manner applicable to the Class as a whole that wan'ants declaratory relief. 94. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequate protect and represent the interests of the Class. The management of the Class action proposed is not extraordinarily difficult and the factual and legal issues raised will not require extended contact with the members of the Class because defendants' conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be established by common proof. Plaintiffs counsel, attorneys Saracco and Rosen, participated as attorneys in class actions brought pursuant to the FDCP A. 95. Given the nature of defendants' practices. it is likely that other consumers in Pennsylvania have been harmed by these practices. 96. The law firm of Krevsky & Rosen, located at 110 [ North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, have agreed to enter its appearance as co-counsel to ensure that Plaintiffs counsel will have adequate resources to represent the class. 97. This action could be handled as a no-notice class, and is superior to the alternative, hundreds of Pennsylvania residents filing separate FDCP A actions. 98. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court consider the frequency and persistence of defendants' non-compliance, the nature of defendants' non-compliance, and the obvious intentional nature of the defendants by failing to verifY whether the collection amount is valid, as required by Pennsylvania law and whether the statute of limitations expired. 99. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court certify the class and award such amount for each named Plaintiff, $1,000.00, plus such amount as this Honorable Court may allow for all other class members, without regard to a minimum of $500,000.00 or one percent of the net wroth of the debt collector, and attomey fees of$350.00 per hour, and costs as reasonably determined by this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court a. CertifY the class, b. Appoint Plaintiff to represent the members of the class, c. Appoint Deanna Lynn Saracco and the law firm of Krevsky & Rosen as counsel for the class, d. Declare that defendants's collection practices violated the FDCPA. e. Declare that defendants' practices of adding unlawful collection fees violated Pennsylvania law and the FDCP A, f. Enter judgement in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against Defendants, for statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees in the amount of$350.00 per hour, g. Grant such further relief as this Honorable Cour1 deems just and proper. ~ Dated: 7/21/05 By: Is/Deanna Lvnn Saracco ~/. . . Deanna Lynn Saracco / ~ Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03785 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BELTON NEFRETIRI OKALA VS BERMAN ERIC M P C ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: BERMAN ERIC M ESQUIRE but was unable to locate Him In his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of MONTGOMERY County, pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On October 10th , 2005 , this office was In receipt of the attached return from MONTGOMERY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Montgomery Co 33.00 Postage .74 58.74 10/10/2005 DEANNA LYNN SARACCO ~ as Kline iff of Cumberland County -- Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ l day of ~~ eJOV~ft~arY v In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Nefretiti Okala Belton VS. Eric M. Berman PC et al SERVE: Eric M. Berman, esquire No. 05-3785 civil Now, September 26, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Montgane:ry County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. .r~~e:~~,~~ Sheriff of Cum berland County, P A Affidavit of Service Now, ,20_, at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to copy of the original a and made known to the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of County, PA Sworn and subscribed before methis_dayof ,20_ COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDA VrT $ $ ;/ , ,r, l' , C, v../ v- f; ,"J ,\ R. THOMAS KLINE Sheriff \~ ot q[,Umbe ~~ lttt, ~~ '/0 "<> ~~ ,.~ ~'~ l!;~..j , _r;~, _~,.;~' " \.L....:==. !>. .. t*~"\( . ~ \' , ',"', ..c ~ " '-, +. ll''f7' . ":\1,'~ r}3t.,/'i f"'lr ..'~ !? l~" ":,:;>~'j1t ,-;<J'fI '~ "I f~""~ 11 jl,lI t4~'f~);::-#.::-"'~' ~""J.:k '~.'!>i;:>-~'l;"":<l~!?",~~~~" ~ ""',,-;>, ,.' ~.D~i'.:o/-\..~,'~-_, ." '.~~..~,.... ~- J OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF RONNY R. ANDERSON Chief Deputy o jQby $~.,?MITH R~~Est!lte Deputy -0 r:-j r"J (_1) EDWARD L. SCHORPP Solicitor ~ "" '\j I "",\ ~ One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 . j , ,~) .J TO: Hon. John Durante Montgomery County Sheriff RE: Nefretiri Okala Belton VS Eric M. Berman, esquire 05-3785 civil Dear Sheriff: Enclosed please find Notice and Canplaint to be served upon Eric M. Berman, esquire 198 Allendale Road suite 306 King of PrussiaJ PA 19406 ?ERSONSEMD .. Rll'ltQN' POSITION PtACE OF SeRVICE TIME OF SERVICE DATE OF SERVICE NUMBER OF AlTEMPTS ., L9 ~~'~~ .( . I"""" l, . V G ) (\. ~, rx.~ z/' M ~( r\~ .~ I l (Ie / ()t{\- i (l- ~Cf I .~ \j}-~ (K' b (2 v ~' .. '>, \;. ;/.., l.--- ,~- (1-' J~, 0 ! ~ 1\ 0'-'. 1\..0........ \ ~' fll .~ ~~~ o. \ 1, 0 u \ (J v -\~'l~\ yV 10 ;;y y \ [~ in your County. .' ~~ Id send us your return of service. Very truly yours, .~~~~. R. Thomas rUine, Sheriff Cumberland County) Pennsylvania DEPlli, /y DEPUTY '..AST DAY OF SERVICE ~ti7/).. NUMBER: B- 4712 DATE: Oct. 3, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY Nefrestiri Okala Belton Vs Eric M. Berman, Esq. 198 Allendale Rd., Suite 306 King of Prussia, P A 19406 1tf) ~eE Sf) /l1tS7II~s..JdhwP. VurlNt1t8' ~~ ()111tfJ1t79~ (!fJ1Ot71I On Sept. 30, 2005 @ 11: 1 0 the deputy returned because the above moved per management. Deputy Sheriff Mason IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA NEFRETIRI OKALA BEL TON, Plaintiff, : Civil Action No: 05-3785 CIVIL TERM v. ERIC M. BERMAN, P.C., and ERIC M. BERMAN, ESQUIRE, an individual, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW, WITH PREJUDICE And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Deanna Lynn Saracco, and files this Praecipe to Withdraw, with Prejudice, the above captioned matter as the parties have amicably settled their dispute. This case is now discontinued, please mark this case CLOSED. Dated: 10/31/05 / <Ii _"'-\ By: /slDeanna L Deanna Lynn Sar c Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Oreenmont Drive Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750 Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw@ao1.com I hereby certifY that a true and correct copy was served upon defendant, via U.S. First Class Mail, as follows: Eric Berman, Esquire Eric M. Berman, P.C. 500 West Main Street Suite 212 Babylon, NY 11701-3035 10/31/05 .J) ~ /slDeanna Lvn~ . (") c: ;?' -:p rij !,'r-'-- :zj: -/~ ."-, (f)) .~. 1-:::- ;, ~'~. ~c, .;:;~(~ ....."'c ~ 0--' = = "". :r. o ..c I ~ ~~ nl~ -as :uo ?6 --1..., :t:..,.-; ~~(-) OfT\ -'-l 2.0 '< -0 3 ~ (...) -'