HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-4859
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
SHELLY SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
v.
THE LAW OFFICE OF SAM
STREETER,PLLC,and
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE, and
CACH, LLC,
Defendants.
Civil Term No.: 05-4859
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.
.<.( lA--
By: /JDe~hvnn 'Saracco
Deanna Lynn Saracco
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@ao1.com
Dated: 11/29/05
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy was served upon defendant, via U.S. First Class Mail,
as follows:
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE AND
LAW OFFICE OF SAM STREETER, PLLC
10333 Richmond A venue, Suite 600
Houston, TX 77042
~'- )
/1
,,-)
~ll
:~-.!
'00':"1
( )
:-i1
11/19/05
rGt~A
/s/Deanna Lynt\ Saracco
,
r...,
--:1
c.'J
rr,
C")
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHELL Y SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
v.
THE LAW OFFICE OF SAM
STREETER, PLLC, and
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE, and
CACH, LLC,
Defendants.
0;-- L/ gSf
cktJ
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
estas 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
previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros
derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMED1ATAMENTE. 31 NO TIENE ABOGADOO 31
NO T1ENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1CION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OF1C1NA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SHELLY SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - lUR Y TRIAL
DEMANDED
65- i J' ~~1 Ct~ (;---
THE LAW OFFICE OF SAM
STREETER, PLLC, and
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE, and
CACH, LLC,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and files this Complaint and in
support thereot~ avers the following:
COUNT I
1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. 92270 et seq.
2. Defendant The Law Office of Sam Streeter, PLLC, is a law firm and business entity
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a
mailing address 10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 600, Houston, Texas, 77042.
3. Defendant Same Streeter, Esquire, is an attorney, engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts in this Commonwealth with the same mailing address.
4. Defendant CACH, LLC., is a business entity that is engaged in purchasing consumer
debts in default and then attempting to collect on said debts, as such, is not a creditor as
defined by 15 U.S.C. a(4) and is liable under state and federal law. The mailing address
for CACH LLC will be provide by defendant Streeter.
5. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the
Pennsylvania FCEU, 73 P.S. S2270.4(a).
6. 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).
7. Defendant's 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.
8. 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. 92270.5.
COUNT II
9. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. S1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. S1692k(d) and 28 U.S.c.
S1337.
10. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
11. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U .S.c. 91692a(6).
12. Defendants Sam Streeter, Esquire and The Law Firm of Sam Streeter, PLLC are attorney
debt collectors and conduct a business entity engaged in the business of collecting debts
in this Commonwealth and is a debt collector as defined by 15 U .S.c. I 1 692a(3 ).
13. Defendant CACH, LLC, is a business entity engaged in the business of purchasing
consumer debt in default and then attempting to collect those alleged debt, as such, is a
debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(3).
14. Defendant's letter dated July 14,2005, and telephone calls that pre-date receipt of the
collection letter are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.c.
I 1692a(2) and 1692a(5).
15. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendants were hired to collect a debt relating to a
consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
16. Defendant communicated with plaintiff on or after one year before the date of this action,
in connection with collection efforts, by letters, telephone contact or other documents,
with regard to plaintiff's alleged debt.
17. On or about July 14,2005, defendants drafted and mailed, to the Plaintiff, via U.S. mail,
collection or "dunning" letters, which attempt to coerce Plaintiff into paying the alleged
debt.
18. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that attorney Streeter did not review Plaintiff's
account.
19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that attorneys use their letterheads and status in a
way collection agencies cannot and that a letter from attorney adds a heightened urgency
to the claim.
20. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that most attorney debt collector rarely, if ever, file
suit against consumers.
21. 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).
22. An attorney's interstate collection letters 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).
23. It has long been held that the FDCP A does not permit attorneys to use facsimile
signatures. Clomonv. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2dCir. 1993).
24. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the rationale behind this rule was a concern that
attorneys were not actively involved in the collection process, and by at least requiring an
actual signature, some degree of actual review was imposed.
25. Defendant's letter is clearly a mass-mailed form letter.
26. Defendant's letter contains a facsimile signature.
27. Defendant's letter does not state that defendant is licensed to practice law in
Pennsylvania.
28. Defendant's letterhead would easily confuse the least sophisticated consumer and cause
the consumer to falsely believe that he/she could be sued in an out-of-state court. Rosa v.
Gaynor, 704 F. Supp. I (D. Conn. 1989).
29. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant's legal letterhead was used 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. S 1692g.
30. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that CACH, LLC, Sam Streeter and his law firm,
acted in concert in order to mislead, confuse and deceive Plaintiff as well as the least
sophisticated consumer.
31. Defendants CACH, LLC, Sam Streeter and his law firm, are liable for each other actions
under principal/agent theories as well as the FDCP A.
32. Defendant's letter states that CACH, LLC, is the "creditor" of the alleged debt as such,
Plaintiff never signed an agreement with CACH, LLC for credit.
33. Further, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that neither CACH, LLC or Streeter and his
law firm, have the proper authority under Pennsylvania law to collect the alleged debt.
34. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.c.
91692n. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. 97311:
"Unlawful collection agency practices.
(a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful for a collection agency, for the purpose of
collecting or enforcing the payment thereo[ 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.l )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."
35. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. S I 692f. Defendant violated this section
of the FDCPA.
36. 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. 91692e.
Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A.
37. 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 of a debt. 15 U.S.c. S 1692d. Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A.
38. 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. SI692c(b).
Defendant violated this section of the FDC? A.
39. The FOCP 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. s1692j. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA.
40. The FOCP A states, it is unlawful to add interest, charges, fees or other costs unless
authorized by law or contract; Plaintiff does not have a contract with Defendant. 15
U.S.c. ~ 1692f and ~ I 692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendant violated this section of the
FDCP A.
41. The FOCP A provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. S1692g. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA.
42. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the
consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that
the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications.
15 U.S.C. ~ I 692c(a)(3). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA.
43. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and
otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation of 15 U.S.c. sI692e(5) and (10),
SI692f(8) and ~1692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977).
44. Defendant's communications created a false sense of urgency on the past of Plaintiff in
violation of the FOCP 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).
45. Any threat of litigation is false if the defendant 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, IS U.S.c. ~1692e(5). IS U.S.C. s1692e(10).
46. At all time pertinent hereto, the defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants
and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment,
and under the direct supervision and control of the defendants herein.
47. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of defendant as well as their agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.
48. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made false threats of
litigation.
49. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendant does not routinely file suit
against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 D.S.C. S 1692e(5) and (10).
50. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
sI692e(5) and (10), 91692f(8) and S1692j.
51. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement
was not made.
52. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
53. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c,
d, e, f, g, h, and/or n.
54. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
55. 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.
\0) 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 FDCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.c. SI692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief: and such other relief as this Honorable Court
deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
COUNT III - CLASS ACTION
56. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
57. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 23, permits a class action if certain criteria are met.
58. The FDCPA permits class action. 15 U.S.C. S1692k(a)(2)(B).
59. In this case, CACH, LLC, caused Streeter and his law firm, unlicensed in Pennsylvania
and without proper legal authority, to attempt to collect the alleged debt.
60. In this case, both defendants failed to comply with Pennsylvania law, 18 Pa.C.S. S7311
et seq.
61. In this case, defendants' letter contained false, deceptive and misleading statements.
62. This action seeks a declaration that the form of defendants' collection letter violated the
FDCPA
63. This action seeks a declaration that defendants' collection practices violated the FDCP A.
64. The Class consists of all persons who received a collection letter identical or similar to
the letters attached as Exhibit.
65. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class.
66. It is unknown how many letters were sent by each defendant, as such, Plaintiff believes
and therefore avers that the number exceeds 100 persons.
67. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class.
68. This Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.
69. 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.
70. 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 defendant's 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.
71. Given the nature of defendants' practices, it is likely that other consumers in
Pennsylvania have been harmed by these practices.
72. The law firm of Krevsky & Rosen, located at 1101 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.
73. 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.
74. 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, failure to secure the proper
authorizations as required by Pennsylvania law and in generaL attempting to deceive
Pennsylvania consumers.
-
75. 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, 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' practices of adding unlawful collection fees violated
Pennsylvania law and the FDCP A.
e. 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,
f. Grant such furiher relief as this Honor;\e Court deems just aud proper.
Dated: 9/19/05 By: /S/l)eantiJJ~;('."
Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750, Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com
'\
s
~.
~
~
,.
"
0<."
~
-C::..,
'~ ~.
~
~~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
, ~.
~ ~
~
\...rt
~
Q
c
';C~
~
r-'
c.;::>
c:>
(:..r'\
(/')
t.......
-0
-
u>
~~.." ;'"-)
;;"" C':
~-1
.-4.
..,/
--0
Q,
--'
:)::-n
rnr:
-oeu
:nY
OC)
::;:\,-.
-')::9
.'-" C)
L)rn
-I
-':''''''
~'..,
'.:Z:
:~":
--"
r:-?
.....
o
.~
-------
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYlL VANIA
SHELLY SHEPLEY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
v,
THE LAW OFFICE OF SAM
STREETER, PLLC, and
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE, and
CACH, LLC,
Defendants.
Civil Term No.: 05-4859
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.
~lA-.
By: /gfueannltiynn 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
Dated: 11/29/05
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy was served upon defendant, via U.S, First Class Mail,
as follows:
11119/05
tGt)1
Is/Deanna Lynn Saracco
~-. ) ~..-)
( ,
., 1
,
,_.~ ".1 :~1
1-' ;-n
c- )
,
(,,,; ;
(,)
(, r; ~
C- . <,
SAM STREETER, ESQUIRE AND
LAW OFFICE OF SAM STREETER, PLLC
10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 600
Houston, TX 77042