Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-0359 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH A. THORN, Plaintiff: CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. VALENTINE & KEBART AS, INC'.. Defendant. 0(., - ~ ~9 Ciu;L 1&..Y7I 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, I' A 1-800-990-9108,717-249-3166 NOTICIA -,-,p ha~l de;Tlar;dacio a .'_o-ed e::-: L'; "~-,c:>~. i u:-:;--ecl qui 'e clef -'(~f---,-,.se de es~as derrandas cxpuetas ~__ :a~ I'agina ~i(lIJjentr~~ IJ~-ea _l0~e v~e::-;[_c ()O) di as de plazo a I parLr de I a fECh) de "CYCT', C C, D en pc,' sona FCT abogadu y archivar erl Ja cor~e erl forma excrita sus riefensas s s ect~(~:es alas dernarlde, la corte tomara med~das y puede e~:_rar urld orcler, ~ontra listed si~ previa aviso 0 notificacio~ y par c~lal(~u~er qucja 0 al~vjo oue es peaido er 1a pe~icion (ie deDa~da. IJsted pupae perder d~nero ~ ~us proole(j~des 0 o~ros derechos importan~es para usted. LL2\'S ESTA [)Ef~A:\DA Pi UN f\30GI\.CO -;-:'"1HSC=J\T";;[v1:::'<T:~. SI N() TI::::::E .A.::~C::;AJOO .c;::: NO T:LEl'~E EL ~nN::::EO S:jF'lCIENTE DE I?1\J:;P.F Tii: SE~,\'I::'I:~-;n, \'l',:':"l::.. =>J P~l<SONA 0 1.LAIV:E POR TELEI?O'):C:: i"'l, LP. OI?ICTNl\ Cln:'.A. DI;:Z~',CC~ION Sf PUF,D~:COl'E;r_::;(lTF: P":::::L:;TEH~~Tl\ =-'EGAL. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH A. THORN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION - JUR Y TRIAL DEMANDED VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, INC., Defendant. 010 - 359 Cu;LI~ COMPLAINT And now comes PIaintill by and through her counscl. and Illes this Complaint and in support thereof: avcrs the following: COUNT I I. Jurisdiction lor this Action is asserted under the Pcnnsylvania Fair Credit Extension Unitormity AcL 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. M148099- 1236. 3. Violating provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also violate the Pennsylvania FCEU. 73 P.S. ~2270.4(a). 4. That defendant engaged in unfair methods of compctition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as detlned by FCEl! and the regulations. including but not limited to. violations of 37 Pa.Code 99303.3(3), 303.3( 14), 303.3( 18),303.6 and 73 P,S. 9201-2(4). 5. Defendant's acts as described herein were done with malicious. intentional, willfi.d. reckless, negligent and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs rights with the purpose of coercing PIaintitfto pay the alleged debt. 6. 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 requcsts that this Honorable Court issue judgmcnt on his behalf and against defendants for a statutory penalty, trcble damagcs, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to 73 P.S. S2270.5. COUNT II 7. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Dcbt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.c. S1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.c. SI692k(d) and 28 U.S.c. S1337. 8. Venuc lies in this District pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1391(b). 9. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer pursuant to 15 U.S.C. S 1692a(6). 10. Defendant is a debt collectors and conduct a business entity engaged in the business of collecting dcbts in this Commonwealth and is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.c. 11692a(3 ). II. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendant was attempting to collect a debt relating to a consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.") 12. Defendant communicated with plaintilTon or after one year before the date of this action, in connection with collection ef1(lrts, by Ictters, telcphone contact or other documents. with regard to plaintiff s allegcd debt. 13. On or about Octobcr 7, 2005, defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., drafted and mailed, to the PlaintifI via U.S. maiL collection or "dunning" lettcrs, in an attempt to coerce Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt. (Attached as Exhibit A.) 14. Prior to receipt of the letter dated October 7, 2005, Plaintitl' received telephone calls from Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc. 15. The telephone calls made by agents ofValcntine & Kebartas, Inc" contained false. misleading, confusing and harassing statements, including. threats of litigation, threats of wage attachment. rude and foullanguagc as well as name-calling. 16. Agents of Valentine & Kebartas, Inc.. discusscd the alleged debt with third parties, which violated the Plaintiffs right to privacy. 17. Plaintiff believes and thcreforc avers that the defendant was a law finn, attempting to collcct the alleged debt. 18. Plaintitfbelieves and therefore avers that defendant did not aHord Plaintitfthe opportunity to dispute the alleged debt. interest charges, late fees and/or other amounts added to his alleged account. 19. Defendant contacted Plainti If in September and early October, never aH(mling Plainti IT at a minimum, 30 days to dispute the alleged debt. 20. Defendant failed to give PlaintifTthe proper notice in its initial communication to Plaintiff: in violation of the FDCPA. 21. Defendant Valentine & Kebartas, Inc" used letterhead that caused PlaintifTto believe that it was a law linn, thus misrepresenting the company's authority to carry out the threats made during telephone conversations, Crosslev v. Lieberman, 868 F 2d 566 Od Cir. 1(89). 22. Plaintiff believes and there lore avers that detendant Chase, used Valetine & Kebartas, [nc" in order to mislead, confuse and deceivc PlaintitT as well as the least sophisticated consunler. 23. The rDCPA states that a violation of state law is a violation oCthe FDCPA. 15 U.S.c. ~ I 692n. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent parI. 18 l'a.C.S. ~731 \: "Unlawful collection agency practices. (a) Assignment of claims. It is lawful tor a collection agency. for thc purpose of collecting or enJorcing thc payment thereoL to takc an assignment of any such claim from a creditor. if all of the following apply: ]. The assignment between the crcditors and eollcction agency is in writing: 2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit assignn1ents. 3. The collection agcncy complies with the act of Dccembcr 17, 1968... (b.\ )Unfair or deceptive methods. It is unlawful for a collector to collect any amount including any intcrest lec, chargc or expense incidental to thc principal obligation, unless such amount is exprcssly provided in the agreement creating the debt or is permitted by law." 24. The FDCPA states. a dcbt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means tocollcct or attempt to collect any debt. 15 LJ.S.c. ~ 1692L Def'cndant violatcd this section ofthe FDCPA. 25. Plaintiff believes and theref()re avcrs that defendant did not have the proper authority to collect the alleged debt. 26. The FOCI' A states, a debt collector may not use false, deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 (,;.S.c. 0] 692e. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 27. The FDCPA statcs, a debt collector may not engage in any conduct thc natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. 15 lJ.S.c. ~ 1692d. Detendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 28. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not communicate. in connection with the collection of any debt. with any person other than the consumer. ] 5 LJ.S.c. 01692c(b). Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 29. The FDCPA states, it is unlawful to design, compilc and furnish any tClrm knowing that such lclrm would bc used to crcate the hllse believc in a consumer that a pcrson othcr than the creditor of such consumer it participating in the collcction of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegcdly owes such creditor. when in fact such person is not so participating. 15 U.S.e. ~ 1692j. Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA. 30. The FDCP A states, it is unlawful to add interest, charges. fces or other costs unless authorized by law or contract; Plaintiff does not havc a contract with Defendant. 15 USe. ~ 16921' and ~ 1692e(2)(A) and (13). Defcndant violated this section ofthc FDCP A. 31. The FDCP A provides certain rights to the consumer rcgarding Plaintitr s right to dispute thc alleged debt. 15 U.S.e. ~ 1692g. Defcndant violated this section of the FDCP A. 32. The FDCP A states, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumcr at the consumer's place of employment if the debt collcctor knows or has reason to know that the consumer's employer prohibits the consumer li'om recciving such communications. 15 U.S.c. ~ I 692c(a)(3). Defendant violated this section of the FDCP A. 33. Detcndant's collection communications were intentionally confusing. misleading and otherwise deccptive to the PlaintitTs. in violation of 15 U.s.e. ~ 1692e(5) and (10), ~1692f{8) and ~1692i, see also, In rc Belile. 208 B.R. 658 (E.D. Pa 1977). 34. Defendant created a false scnse of urgency on the past of PlaintitT in violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. III. 19(3); Sluvs v. Hand, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1(93); and Rosa v. Gavnor. 784 F. Supp I (D. Conn. 1989). 35. At all time pertinent hcreto, thc defendant was acting by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employmcnt and under the direct supcrvision and control of the defendants herein. 36. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of defendants. as wcll as their agents, servants, and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, recklcss, negligent and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the PlaintilThcrein. 37. PlaintifTbelieves and therefore avers that agents of the defendants made false threats of litigation. 38. Defendants threat of litigation was false bccause ddendant does not routinely file suit against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.c. ~ I 692e(5) and (10). 39. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 LJ.S.c. ~ 1692e(5) and (I 0). ~ I 692f(8) and ~ I 692j. 40. PlaintifTwas confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement was not made. 41. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages. 42. Defendant in its collection eff')I'ts, violated the FOCI' A. inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c. d, e, L g, h, and/or n. 43. Defendant in its collection efTorts, used false or dcceptive acts and intended to oppress and harass plaintilf 44. That, as a result of the wrongful tactics of defendants as aforementioned, plaintifThas been subjected to anxiety, harassment intimidation and annoyance for which compensation is sought WHEREFORE, PlaintitT respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgmcnt on her behalf and against defendants and issue an Order: (A) Award Plaintirrstatutory damages in thc amount or One Thousand Dollars ($I,OOOJJO) for each violation of the Foep A and/or each separate and discrete incident in which each of the defendants' have violated the FoePA and ror which PlaintitTcould have tiled a separate action but consolidated her claims I')r judicial economy. (B) Award Plaintiff general damages and punitive damages for anxiety, harassment, and intimidation directed at him in an amount not less than Tcn Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), as well as thc repetitive nature of de tend ants form letters. i('i) Award Plaintitfcosts 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 FOCPA, permitted by 15 U.S.c. 01692k(a)(3). (0) Award declaratory and injunctive relie!: and such other rclief as this Honorable Court deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide. Dated: 1/17/06 By: /s/Deanna Lvnn Saracco f) tl_J Deanna Lynn Saracco, Attorn~~ff 76 Grcenmont Drivc Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Telephone 717-732-3750, Fax 717-728-9498 Email: SaraccoLaw((I.aol.com \.) ..lcO. P '- Ul ~ Ul V1 ?5 \Y. ""::l ~ ...:t:.. D -t ,;, ,-\ ~ '-: ~1.,'\7~ ~.:.' D -'~ .- " c~.: .-..'~ ;-" , )) .. . '~,' r.J .,-.":;' -_c~" C_' '> IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH A. THORN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, INC., Defendant. No.: 06-359 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE And now comes Plaintiff, by and through his counsel, Deanna Lynn Saracco, and files this Praecipe to Withdraw the above captioned matter, with prejudice as the parties have amicably settled their dispute. This case should be discontinued and you may mark this case CLOSED. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 7/12/06 eanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff 76 Greenmont Drive Enola, PAl 7025 7]7-732-3750 Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that I served, via U.S. First Class Mail, a copy of the forgoing, on the defendant as follows: Richard J. Perr, Attorney Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.c. United Plaza, Suite 1800 30 South] 7th Street Philadelphia, P A 19103 ~aracco Dated: 7/12/06 ,~ .~....,... <~~ 'l' ~ ." -.... r ---! ,; - ~ c.: '!