HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6199IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH A. THORN,
Plaintiff,
V.
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, INC.,
and CREDITOR RECOVERY CORP., and
MIDCOAST CREDIT CORP., and
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, and
J P MORGAN CHASE,
Defendants.
OS -to 19? 21uI???-%
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO THE DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN:
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to
the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so, the case may proceed without further notice for
any money claimed in the Complaint, or for any other claim or
relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or
property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 S. Bedford Street, Carlisle, PA
1-800-990-9108,717-249-3166
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quire defenderse de
estas demandas expuetas en las paginas siquientes, usted tiene viente (20)
dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la excrita o en persona o por abogado y
archivar en la corte en forma excrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las
demande, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin
previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros
derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. ST NO TIENE ADOGADOO SI
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH A. THORN,
Plaintiff,
v.
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, INC...
and CREDITOR RECOVERY CORP., and
MIDCOAST CREDIT CORP., and
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, and
J P MORGAN CHASE,
Defendants.
CIVIL, ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
OT - 14 4 ec <<??e r''1
COMPLAINT
And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and files this Complaint and in
support thereof, avers the following:
COUNTI
L Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. §2270 et seq.
2. Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., P. O. Box 325, Lawrence, MA 01842, is a
business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts in this
Commonwealth with an additional mailing address of P. O. Box 1236, Troy, MI 48099-
1236.
3. Defendant Creditor Recovery Corporation, is a business entity, engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 24100 El
Toro Road, Ste D-328, Laguna Woods, CA, 92637.
4. Defendant Midcoast Credit Corp., 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 is 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 625, West Palm Beach, FL.. 33401.
5. Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank and ,1 P Morgan Chase, are creditors, who engage in
the business of extending credit as well as collections, within this Commonwealth, with a
mailing address of P. O. Box t5298, Wilmington. DE, 19850-5298.
6. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the
Pennsylvania FCFU, 73 P.S. §2270.4(a).
7. That defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices, as defined by FCEU and the regulations, including but not limited to, violations
of 37 Pa.Code §§303)-3)(3)-303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. §201-2(4).
8. 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.
9. 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 11
10. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C.
§1337.
11. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
12. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
13. Defendants Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., Creditor Recovery Corp., and Midcoast Credit
Corp., are 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 1692a(3).
14. Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank and .I P Morgan Chase, (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Chase") are business entities engaged in extending consumer credit as well
as collecting delinquent accounts, and are liable for unfair business practices.
15. Defendant Midcoast Credit Corp., is also 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. I I692a(3).
16. On or about September 2, 2005, Defendants Chase sent a collection letter to Plaintiff as
well as made numerous calls to Plaintiff and his employer, which are communications
relating to a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 11692a(2) and 1692a(5). (Attached as
Exhibit A.)
17. Agents of Chase made telephone calls to Plaintiff, which contained false, misleading,
confusing and harassing statements, including, threats of litigation, threats of wage
attachment, abusive behavior as well as name-calling.
18. Agents of Chase discussed the alleged debt with third parties, which violated the
Plaintiffs right to privacy.
19. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendants were attempting to collect a debt relating to a
consumer transaction. (hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
20. 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 debt.
21. On or about October 7, 2005. defendant Valentine & Kebartas, [tic., drafted and mailed,
to the Plaintiff, via U.S. mail, collection or "dunning" letters, in an attempt to coerce
Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt. (Attached as Exhibit B.)
22. Prior to receipt of the letter dated October 7, 2005, Plaintiff received telephone calls from
Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., to both his home and by his employer on his
employer's cell phone.
23. The telephone calls made by agents of Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., contained false,
misleading, confusing and harassing statements, including. threats of litigation, threats of
wage attachment, rude and ford language as well as name-calling.
24. Agents of Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., discussed the alleged debt with third parties, which
violated the Plaintiff's right to privacy.
25. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant Creditor Recovery Corp., and Midcoast Credit
Corp, drafted and mailed, to the Plaintitf, via U.S. mail, collection or "dunning" letters, in
an attempt to coerce Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt. (betters attached as Exhibits
C and D.)
26. At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants were acting in concert to confuse, deceive,
coerce and in general, create a false sense of urgency on the part of the Plaintiff with
respect to the alleged debt.
27. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants.. acting in concert, intentionally,
maliciously, and willfully.. confused Plaintiff into believing that he owed multiple debts to
multiple companies.
28. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the defendants, acting in concert, failed to
afford Plaintiff the opportunity to dispute the alleged debt, interest charges, late fees
and/or other amounts added to his alleged account.
29. Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc.. contacted plaintiff in September and early
October, never affording Plaintiff at a minimum, 30 days to dispute the alleged debt.
30. Defendant Credit Recover Corp, and Midcoast Credit Corp.. contacted Plaintiff within 2
weeks of Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc.. once again, never affording Plaintiff at a
minimum, 30 days to dispute the alleged debt.
31. Defendants, acting in concert, demanded the balance in full, never affording the Plaintiff
an opportunity to set up partial payments.
32. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the alleged debt was sold to a third party, in
violation of Pennsylvania law.
33. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that transfer of the alleged debt, created a benefit to
the defendants involved in the transfer, and any attempt to collect the alleged amount is
deceptive, misleading and/or fraudulent.
34. Each defendant, acting alone and in concert, made threats of litigation against Plaintiff.
35. 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 Adjustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370,
397 (N.D. Tex. 1986).
36. Defendant Valentine & Kebartas. Inc., used letterhead that caused Plaintiff to believe that
it was a law firm, thus misreprescnting the company's authority to cant' out the threats
made during telephone conversations. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 (3d Cir.
1989).
37. Defendant's letterhead would easily confuse the least sophisticated consumer and cause
the consumer to falsely believe that he/she could he sued in an out-of-state court. Rosa v.
Gaynor, 704 F. Supp. l (D. Conn. 1989).
38. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant Chase, used Valetine & Kebartas,
Inc., in order to mislead, confuse and deceive Plaintiff as well as the least sophisticated
consumer.
39. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendant Chase, Creditor Recovery Corp., and
Midcoast Credit Corp., acted in concert in order to mislead. confuse and deceive the
Plaintiff as well as the least sophisticated consumer.
40. Defendants are liable for each other actions under principal/agent theories as well as the
FDCPA.
4t. Defendant Chase, selected, directed and controlled its agents collection practices.
42. The FDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C.
§1692n. Pennsylvania law states.. in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. §7311:
"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.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."
43. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means tocolleet
or attempt to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. §16921'. Defendants violated this section of the
FDCPA.
44. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA.
45. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
46. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the
collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).
Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
47. The FDCPA 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. §1692j. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
48. 'The FDCPA 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. § I692f and § 1692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendants violated this section of the
FDCPA.
49. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 U.S.C. § 16928. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
50. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the
consumer's place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that
the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communications.
15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
51. Defendants, individually and collectively, made their collection communications
intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs, in violation
of 15 U.S.C. §I692e(5) and (10), §I692f(8) and §1692j, see also, to re Belite, 208 B.R.
658 (E.D. Pa 1977).
52. Defendants, individually and collectively, 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); Slut's v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F.
Supp I (D. Conn. 1989).
53. 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.
54. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of defendants, as well as their agents, servants,
and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton
disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein.
55. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of the defendants made false threats of
litigation.
56. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendant does not routinely file suit
against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § I692e(5) and (10).
57. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§1692e(5) and (10), §I692f(8) and §1692j.
58. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement
was not made.
59. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
60. Defendant, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCPA, inter alga, Sections 1692, b, c,
d, e, f, g, h, and/or n.
61. Defendant, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
62. 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 (S 1.000.00)
for each violation of the FDCPA and/or each separate and discrete incident in which
each of the defendants' have violated the FDCPA 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. § 1692k(a)(3).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief, and such other relief as this Honorable Court
deems necessary and proper or law or equity m, provi
Dated: 11 /29/05 By: /s/Deanna Lvnn .
Deanna Lynn Saracco, ttorney for Plaintiff
76 (ireenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750,Fax 717-728-9498
Email: Saraccol,aw@aol.com
f? ?
? ?
# ?. ?
? p d
w ?
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
office of the Protbonotarp
?u>ttberYartb ?Courttp
Renee K. Simpson
Deputy Prothonotary
John E. Slike
Solicitor
Qs'- L J!Z7 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R C P 230.2
BY THE COURT,
CURTIS R. LONG
PROTHONOTARY
n__ n_....t.....a 0.,....b . rarNAA Dnnncvlvanin 17nvi • MIN lAn <inc . V.... /71'7\')AA A['79