HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-1902
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYI"V ANIA
Shelly Shepley,
PlaintiIl
v.
Civil Action No.: ~ -JqD~ elU'~ ~01-.~
.r.A. Cambece Law Oftice, P.e.,
and CACV of Calma do. LLC.
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 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, ~he 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 righ~s 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
,_,8 har; demaLdacio a :.Js::f::d e,_ l;:~ ,~or:_. c.~i u::;:e6 quire (jc.fendec:se de
eSC2S dernJ:~das c;x::meta::-, ere 10.3 pagina:3 si'::Juicntes, s-ecl ler~e \lLeilt,=' (/~C)
d~as de plazo 0.1 par-ir de 12 fec~;a de _3 excr_l.0 0 en !)erscna c per y
archivdr en 1a corte e, forma excrila sus defens2s 0 S\~S objE~ iones alas
dernande, 1a corte tomara IT'sdidas Y pllede 8rltrar u~a orde~ co~:tra us~ed Slrl
previo a'lis::) 0 Eotificacicn 'ji por- ::.:ua~O:luiE:'r qL:C ,Cl D a-=-i v~,c cp;e e.':; r:edide:, ('fl LC:
p(~:::,i,:.:::io~-l de den:anda. fl,:-eci ~:'IJQde ;::;C,'_'::.c:(~'r ~;in(,('-C) .C;1JS p_ -'pie-:;adfC_'.'3 0 cl"-;'3
d'::[c:(~h,-')s _~;r:;'; r~;::J~" (':-~ r;,;3 :l:,I-,~d
~,LE;/E, -":p, [;=:r./,L,:<!-~T\. ,lJ. IJ'\1 - ~'(-,\C:/J.,I -'II
NC '.='I::::N2 ',IJ DINERJ) F- IF,i'J':'E 'If'. _", ~z-\~ 'Jr.
t-~C)F: TELr:cCNCi ,D. L.D. (~'F'=C.lt<P\ r,-r<E:-~(' c:I',l ."~
~C."I . E'.
'[
1"~]E:' "_
riC' I' I =~\: ,;,yr
~ -" t,: f< i: 1-1?~
"_,1',
,',-rT,
_Lr\
,1_T\!i;E
. (,'d .
IN THE COl;RT OF COMMO'll PLEAS
ClIMBERLAND CO{l'llTY, PENNSYLVA'IIIA
Shelly Shepley,
Plaintitl:
v.
Civil Action No.:
01- - /90L CI~,L~~
J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.c..
and CACV of Colorado. LLC,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COlJNT I
I. Jurisdiction for this action is asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.c. ~1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15U.s.C. ~1692k(d) and 28 U.S.c.
~1337.
')
Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 USe:. 1391(b).
o
-'-
Plaintiff is an individual residing in Pennsylvania and a consumer pursuant to 15 USe.
~1692a(6).
4. Defendant J. A. Cambece Law Officc, P.C" is a busincss entity(ies) engaged in the
business of collecting debts in this Commonwealth with its principal place of business
located at Eight Bourbon Street, Peabody. Massachusetts, 01960.
5. Defendant CACV of Colorado, LLC is a debt collector engaged in the business of
purchasing debts in default and then attempting to collect those debts using various
attorneys around the United States, with a mailing addrcss of 370 17'h Street, Suite 5000,
Denver, CO, 80202-5690.
6. Defendants are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.e. 11692a(3).
7. Defendants sent letters to Plaintitl: dated July 11, 2005. and telephone calls made prior to
that time Plaintiff: which are "communications" relating to a "debt" as defined by 15
U.S.c. I 1692a(2) and 1692a(5).
8. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendants were hired to collcct a debt relating to a
consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "allegcd dcbt.")
9. Defendants communicated with plaintiff on or aftcr onc year before the date of this
action, in connection with collection et1orts. by letters. telephone contact or other
documents. with regard to plaintiff s alleged debt.
10. On or about June and July 2005, delendant J. A. Cambece, contacted Plaintiff by
telephone regarding an alleged debt.
II. During those telephone contacts, Plaintiff intl)rmed defendant that she did not owe the
amount as indicated by thc defendant.
12. Agents of defendant continued to attempt to collect the allegcd dcbt.
13. Agents of de \end ant threatened to lilc a lawsuit against Plaintiff.
14. Plaintiff contacted an attorney and sought legal advice and was told to ask the delendant
to validatc thc alleged debt.
15. Plaintiff asked the defendant to validate the alleged dcbt.
16. Plaintiffreceived a document which stated that on July 11.2005, shc owed $10.593.56,
and that defendant added intcrest of $441. 72.
17. There were no documcnts showing how defendant caleulatcd the unconscionable amount.
18. Thcre were no documents fj'OI)) the original creditor showing how defendant calculated
the amount.
19. In March 2006, defendant contacted Plaintitrs counsel in an attempt to collect the alleged
debt.
20.
Agents of the defendants made tillse, misleading and/or deceptive statements to Plaintiff.
21.
Defendants added interest. fees and costs in violation of Slate and federal law.
22.
Agents of the defendants made false threats of litigation.
70
_J.
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. Crosslev v. Lieberman, 868
F.2d 566 (3d Cif. 1989). United States v. Central Adiustment Bureau, 667 F. Supp. 370,
397 (N.D. Tex. 1986).
24. An attorney's interstate collection contacts must avoid misrepresenting the attorney's
authority to sue where he or she is not admitted to practice. Crosslev v. Lieberman. 868 F
2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989).
25. Defendant's contacts would easily confuse the least sophisticated consumer and cause the
consumer to fillsely believe that hc/she could be sued in an out-ot~state court. Rosa v.
Gavnor, 704 F. Supp. I (D. Conn. 1989).
26. PlaintifT belicves and therefore avers that defendant's contacts to Plaintiff. as an attorney.
were made not in connection with the practice of law. but rather as a debt collector lor the
sole purpose of intimidating the Plaintiff: as such. overshadowed the rDCpA. ~ I 692g.
27. The FDCPA states, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. 15 l;.s.C. ~ 1692f. Defendants violated this section
of the rDCPA.
28. 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 lJ.S.c. ~ 1692e.
Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
29. The FOCI' A states. a debt collector may not engage in any conduct thc natural
consequence of which is to harass. oppress or abusc any pcrson in connection with the
collection ofa debt. 15 U.S.c. S1692d. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
30. The FDCP A states. a debt collector may not communicate, in conncction with the
collection of any debt. with any person other than the consumcr. 15 C.S.c. S 1692c(b).
Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
31. The FOCI' A statcs. 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. S 1692f and S 1692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendants violated this section of the
FOCI' A.
32. The FDCP A provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 U.S.c. S1692g. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
33. 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 iI'om receiving such communications.
15 U.S.c. S I 692e(a)(3 ). Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A.
34. Defendant's collection communications were intentionally confusing, misleading and
otherwise deceptive to the Plaintitfs, in violation of 15 U.S.c. sI692e(5) and (10).
35. Defendants communicated with third parties regarding Plaintiffs alleged debt, in
violation of the FDCPA.
36. Detendant's communications created a 1alse sense of urgency on the past of Plaintitl in
violation of the FDCPA. Tolentino v. Friedman. 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. III. 1993):
Sluvs v. Hanel, 831 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993): and Rosa v. Gavnor. 784 F. Supp I
(D. Conn. 1989).
37. Any threat of litigation is hllse 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, 15 U.s.e. ~1692e(5), 15 U.S.e. ~1692e(lO).
38. The FDCP A states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCPA. 15 U.s.e.
~ I 692n. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.e.S. ~7311:
"U nlawful 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:
I. The assignment between the creditors and collection agency is in writing:
2. The original agreement between the creditor and debtor does not prohibit
assigllll1ents.
39. Plaintiflbelieves and therel(xe avers that defendants violated this provision of
Pennsylvania law.
40. 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 ofthcir
employment. and under the direct supervision and control of the defendants hcrein.
41. At all times pertinent hereto. the conduct of the defendants as well as their agents.
servants, and/or employees, was malicious. intentional. willti.li. reckless. negligent and in
wanton disregard t(ll' federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintitl herein.
42. Plaintiff believcs and therefore avers that the Defendant's agents made false threats of
litigation.
43. Defendant's threat oflitigation was false because defendant does not routinely lile suit
against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.e. ~ I 692e(5) and (10).
44. Defendant's letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 lJ.S.c.
~ I 692e(5 ) and (I 0). ~ 16921(8) and ~ 1692j.
45. Plaintiff was confused. deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement
was not made.
46. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
47. Defendant, in its collection etlorts. violated the FDCPA. inler alia, Sections 1692. b. c.
d, e, C g. h, and/or n.
48. Defendant, in its collection etlorts. used litlsc or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
49. 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, Plaintill'respectfully requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment on his
behalf and against defendants and issue an Order:
(A) A ward Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1.000.00)
for each violation of the rDCP A or each separate and discrete incident in which
defendants have violated the FDCPA.
(8) 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.
(C) Award Plaintiff costs of this litigation. including a reasonable attorney's fee at a rate of
S350.00/hour for hours reasonably expended by his attorney in vindicating his rights
under the rocp A. permitted by 15 U.S.c. ~ I 692k(a)(3 ).
(D) Award declaratory and injunctive relief. and such other relier as this Honorable COlui
deems necessary and proper or law or equity may provide.
1
I
1 ~
By: /s/De!n~lis~ 'co
Deanna Lynn Saracco
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Email: Saracco!.aw(ii)aol.com
Dated: 3/30/06
CACH, LLC
370 17th Street Suite 5000
Ilenver, CO 80202-5690
~~~~lIf~
r-'~\l1fil~*~
f_II~~\lIII~
f-II~~I~'~
F'-.~
SHEPLEY, SHELLY S
525 SPRUCE ST
STEELTON,PA 17113
CACH, llC has purchased this MARYLAND NATIONAL BANK, NA account and is now the
owner of this account.
Payments received at_
above IIsI8d address will
be poe18d that business
day
__inquiries
or correspondence to
370 17th StSUile 500lI
Denver. CO 8lI202-5690
or call toIJ-free
1~ 248 8343
ACCOONT INFORMATION REPORT
ACCOUNT.: 13140159050704351
FINANCIAL
Forwarder: CACH005/MBNA-PR
Acct': 4264296999971036
Placement
07/11/2005 $10,151.72
Last PayaEnt
Assigned to: BADKINS
WIP'
o
Days Left
o
Principal
Interest
Attorney
Court
Mise
$0.00
$10,151. 72
$441. 84
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Original Credi tor:
Debt Type:
MARYLAND NATIONAL BANK, N .A.
CC
STATUS: SALES (HCVR)
BALANCE
$10,593.56
Personal Information
Debtor 1
AI(A
Address
City
Country
Work Tel (777)777-7777
Ext
First
SHELLY
POE~MOTHER
525 SPRUCE ST
STEELTON
MI Last Name
S SHEPLEY
ST PA Zip 17113
Province
Home Tel (777)777-7777
Fax
SS' 183-60-2545
DOB 11/05/1979
Spouse
Driver's License I
State
Bank and Asset
Debtor I
Bank
SHEPLEY, SHELLY S
Address
Tel
Fax
En
Country
Province
City
ST
Zip
Property SHEPLEY STEVEN R & SHELLY
PARCEL: 58001033000000
Account t
Date Verified
$100? No
Type of Account Checking
County
Date Verified
Years Owned
Value
Mortgage
other Assets
Date Verified
Debt
Service Provided CREDIT CARD
Page 1 of 2
10/21/2005 02:40:02
ACCOUNTt:
13140159050704351
ACCOONT INFORMATION REPORT
Forwarder:
Acet':
CACH005/MBNA-PR
4264296999971036
Original Credi tor:
Debt Type:
MARYLAND NATIONAL BANK, N .A.
CC
STATUS: SALES (HCVR)
Assigned to: BADKINS
WIP'
o
Days Left
o
FINANCIAL
Placement
07/11/2005 $10,151.72
Last PayaEnt
Principal
Interest
Attorney
Court
Mise
$0.00
$10,151. 72
$441.84
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
BALANCE
$10,593.56
Placement Breakdown
Principal $10,151. 72
Awarded Int
Attorney Fees
Court Costs
Misc Costs
Accrued Int
Total Placement $10,151.72
Original Loan Terms
Contraet Date
Nu\1lber of Payments
Interest Rate % 13.99
Collateral
Debt Type Credit Cards
Last Payment Date
Last Payment Amount
Last Charge Date
Last Charge Amount
Original Loan Amount
Amount of PayaEnts
Serial/Vin Number
Page 2 of 2
08/16/2003
$100.00
10/21/2005 02:40:02
0 -t.G ~
;:;J 71 U(
\f- tn
~ .--\
lfl. :l
~ .
Q ,
- r,,:'
~ \) -
rl
>J -.r::.
-,.,~ ;1
-CJ ,. ,]
~ 1- ~n
(.."--'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Shelly Shepley,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.: 06-1902
J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.C.,
and CACV of Colorado, LLC,
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 t . case CLOSED.
I
Oated: 5/24/06
By: s1Deanfia
Deanna Lynn Saracco
Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750
Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@aoJ.com
1 hereby certifY that a true and correct copy was served upon defendant, via U.S. First Class Mail,
as follows:
Manuel H. Newburger
Baron & Newburger, PC
1212 Guadalupe, Suite 104
Austin, TX 78701-1837
5/24/06
/sIDeannA1~o
0 ,....0 ~
='
c: =
~,;J". CO'
~,. z :t..,.,
4;) (I'
rP i -:P" n'1r,
...-:
-. '" -0\"1\
.::-;: :r}cr1
U1 r2~()
'/ ~~~.t~~
~i:7-: ~
->:." . :z;;:
~;r.:'" (j' ~~ rn
'-.... r;.;> :::'1
-;:.: )::...
.--1 U1 '::a
-<. (..n .-<;