HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-3890
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Ruth Russell,
Plaintiff,
]
}
]
]
]
}
?l~ - 3~91J
~
v.
Nextel Partners, Inc., and Bureau
of Recovery 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, 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 listed 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 exc~ita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas
demande, 1a corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin
previa avlso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivlo que es pedido en 1a
peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros
derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO 1MMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADOO Sl
NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICION, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME
POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE PUEDECONSEGUIR AS1STENCIA LEGAL.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RUTH RUSSELL.
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
7/-{J.DL.-..J'l'lo ~--r~
v.
BUREAU OF RECOVERY LLC., and
NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
Civil No: 1:06-CV-404
COMPLAINT
And now comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and files this Complaint and in
support thereof, avers the following:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Jurisdiction for this Action is asserted under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. !l2270 et seq.
2. Defendant Bureau of Recovery, LLC, is a business entity, engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts in this Commonwealth with a mailing address of 540 N.
Golden Circle Drive, #300, Santa Ana, CA 92705.
3. Defendant Nextel Partners Inc., is a cellular phone service, who extends credit to
consumers and engages in the practice of collecting accounts, current and past due, within
this Commonwealth, with a mailing address of 4500 Carillon Point, Kirkland, W A,
98033.
4. Defendant NEXTEL all times pertinent hereto, was acting as a debt collector and as such,
is liable under both state and federal law.
5. Jurisdiction for this action is also asserted pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. !l1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), particularly 15 U.S.c. !l1692k(d) and 28
U.S.c. S1337.
6. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l39l(b).
7. Plaintiff is an individual and consumer residing within this Commonwealth pursuant to
15 U.S.C. sI692a(6).
8. Bureau of Recovery LLC, is a is a 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. 11692a(3).
9. Defendant Nextel Partners Inc., is a business entity engaged in the business of cellular
phone service as well as collecting delinquent accounts, and are liable for unfair business
practices under both state and federal law.
10. At all pertinent times hereto, the defendants were attempting to collect a debt relating to a
consumer transaction. (Hereinafter the "alleged debt.")
II. 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 plaintiff's alleged debt.
12. On or about October 2005, Plaintiffs cell phone was stolen.
13. Plaintiff immediately reported the loss to Nextel.
14. Nextel advised Plaintiff to go to Fast Page Radio Inc., to obtain another phone.
15. On or about November 9,2005, Plaintiff went to Fast Page Radio, Inc., to purchase a
used cell phone, at the direction of Nextel.
16. The saleswoman at Fast Page Radio, Inc., sold Plaintiff a phone for $120.00, which after
the sale, could not be programed.
17. Since the used phone that Plaintiff purchased could not be programmed, the saleswoman,
"Tamika" told Plaintiff to get another phone.
18. As such, the saleswoman at Fast Page Radio, Inc., explained to Plaintiff that she could
"swap" the phone for another, and said Plaintiff would be charged $35.00 for the swap.
19. Plaintiff had no other phone to "swap" because her original phone was stolen.
20. On the November 2005, cell phone bill, Plaintiff was charged for the $35.00 to swap the
phones, as well as $263.36 for the phone.
21. Plaintiff paid cash for the phone to Fast Page Radio, Inc.
22. Plaintiff contacted Nextel, explaining that she paid cash at Fast Page for the phone and
Nextel credited Plaintiff's account.
23. Two months later, Nextel billed Plaintiff for the used cell phone a second time.
24. Plaintiff again contacted Nextel and the agent quickly agreed to credit Plaintiff, only to
re-bill the item the following month.
25. In March of 2006, Plaintiff's Nextel contract expired, as such, Plaintiff obtained a new
cell phone carrier.
26. Since that time, agents identifying themselves as being from Nextel Partners, have been
harassing Plaintiff at her place of employment.
27. Plaintiff repeatedly informed agents of Nextel Partners that she could not receive calls at
work.
28. On or about May 24, 2006, a collector, identifying herself as being from Nextel Partners,
contacted Plaintiff at her place of employment and plaintiff immediately told her that
calls at work were prohibited.
29. Plaintiff then explained that she was waiting for her credit because she already paid for
the telephone and would not pay for the phone twice.
30. The female agent on May 24,2006, told Plaintiff that she was stupid and should just pay
for the cell phone.
31. Plaintiff told the Nextel agent that she was not going to pay for the used cell phone twice
and the female agent hung up on Plaintiff.
32. On or about June 28, 2006, Nextel Partners, contacted Plaintiffs place of employment
and spoke to her supervisor.
33. The supervisor advised Nextel Partners that Plaintiff could not receive calls at work.
34. On or about June 29, 2006, Nextel Partners, Plaintiffs supervisor advised her to get the
calls stopped or Plaintiff would lose her job.
35. On or about June 29, 2006, Nextel Partners called Plaintiff at her place of employment,
despite being told numerous times by both Plaintiff and her supervisor, not to contact
Plaintiff at work.
36. Plaintiff asked for the name and the Nextel Partners agent identified himself at Mitch.
37. Plaintiff told him that he was not permitted to contact her at work and he laughed at her
and told her that he could call her whenever and where-ever he wanted.
38. Plaintiff then told Mitch, the Nextel Agent, her situation and explained that she was not
going to pay for the used phone twice.
39. Mitch then told Plaintiff that if she agreed to renew her contract that she would only owe
$102.00.
40. Plaintiff said that she was not going to pay for the used phone twice and she was not
going to renew her contract.
41. Mitch told Plaintiff the only way she could get the credit was for her to renew her
contract.
42. Agents of Nextel Partners and Bureau of Recovery for Nextel, made numerous calls to
Plaintiff and her employer, which are communications relating to a "debt" as defined by
both state and federal law. 15 U.S.C. lI692a(2) and 1692a(5).
43. Agents ofNextel made telephone calls to Plaintiff, which contained false, misleading,
confusing and harassing statements, and were rude, belligerent and insulting to Plaintiff
and her employer.
44. Agents ofNextel discussed the alleged debt with third parties, which violated the
Plaintiff's right to privacy.
45. Agents ofNextel contacted Plaintiff place of employment during evening hours, despite
being told by Plaintiff's supervisor that Plaintiff left work at 5:00 p.m.
46. Agents of both defendants acted in concert to confuse, deceive, coerce and in general,
create a false sense of urgency in an attempt to contact Plaintiff.
47. Agents of both defendants acted in concert and discussed the alleged debt with a third
party.
48. Plaintiff could not distinguish between the debt collector from Bureau of Recovery and
Nextel Partners.
49. All debt collectors identified themselves as being from "Nextel Partners."
50. Plaintiff did not learn that Bureau of Recovery was a separate company until she was so
informed by her attorney.
51. At no time was Plaintiff given 30 days to dispute the alleged debt because she was
contacted at her place of employment and never received the validation notice.
52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants, acting in concert, intentionally,
maliciously, and willfully, confused Plaintiff into believing that she owed and was
responsible to pay a disputed debt.
53. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the defendants, acting alone and 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.
54. Defendants, acting alone and in concert, demanded the balance in full, never affording the
Plaintiff an opportunity to set up partial payments.
55. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the alleged debt was sold to a third party, in
violation of Pennsylvania law.
56. 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.
57. Each defendant, acted alone and in concert, made threats of litigation against Plaintiff.
58. Defendants are liable for each other actions under principal/agent theories as well as the
FDCP A.
59. Defendant Nextel selected, directed and controlled its agents' collection practices.
COUNT I - PENNSYL VANIA FAIR CREDIT
EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 73 P.S. ~2270 et seq.
(Against Nextel Partners Inc., and Bureau of Recovery LLC.)
60. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
61. The FDCP A states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCP A. 15 U.S.c.
S 1692n. Pennsylvania law states, in pertinent part, 18 Pa.C.S. P3ll:
"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:
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.
62. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants violated this provision of
Pennsylvania law.
63. Plaintiff further believes that defendants violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, as alleged in Count ll, as such, said violated also violate the Pennsylvania
FCEU, 73 P.S. S2270.4(a).
64. 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 9S303.3(3), 303.3(14), 303.3(18), 303.6 and 73 P.S. 9201-2(4).
65. 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.
66. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs, in an amount of not less that $30,000.00.
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. 92270.5.
COUNT 11- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. ~1692 et seq.
(Against Nextel Partners Inc., and Bureau of Recovery LLC.)
67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as iffully set forth herein.
68. The FDCP A states that a violation of state law is a violation of the FDCP A. 15 V.S.c.
9l692n. Defendants violated 18 Pa.C.S. 97311.
69. 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. 9 I 692f. Defendants violated this section.
70. 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 V.S.C. 91692e.
Defendant violated this section of the FDCPA.
71. 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 V.S.c. 9l692d. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
72. 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 V.S.c. 9 I 692c(b ).
Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
73. 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. SI692j. Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
74. The FDCP 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. sI692fand sI692e(2)(A) and (B). Defendants violated this section of the
FDCP A.
75. The FDCPA provides certain rights to the consumer regarding her right to dispute the
alleged debt, 15 U .S.C. S l692g. Defendants violated this section of the FDCP A.
76. 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. SI692c(a)(3). Defendants violated this section of the FDCPA.
77. Defendants, individually and collectively, made their collection communications
intentionally confusing, misleading and otherwise deceptive to the Plaintiffs. in violation
of 15 U.S.C. S l692e(5) and (10), S l692t~8) and S l692j, see also, In re Belile, 208 B.R.
658 (E.D. Pa 1977).
78. Defendants, individually and collectively, created a false sense of urgency on the past of
Plaintiff in violation ofthe FDCP A. Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F. Supp. 697 (N.D. III.
1993); Sluvs v. Hand, 83\ F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); and Rosa v. Gaynor, 784 F.
Supp I (D. Conn. 1989).
79. At all time pertinent hereto, the detimdants 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.
80. 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.
81. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that agents of the defendants made false threats of
litigation.
82. Defendants threat of litigation was false because defendant does not routinely file suit
against consumer debtors, in violation of 15 U.S.C. sI692e(5) and (10).
83. Defendants letters were intentionally confusing and deceptive, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
sI692e(5) and (10), SI692f(8) and S1692j.
84. Plaintiff was confused, deceived and believed that litigation was imminent if settlement
was not made.
85. The above mentioned acts with supporting cases demonstrates that the conduct of
defendants rises to the level needed for punitive damages.
86. Defendants, in its collection efforts, violated the FDCP A, inter alia, Sections 1692, b, c,
d, e, f, g, h, and/or n.
87. Defendants, in its collection efforts, used false or deceptive acts and intended to oppress
and harass plaintiff.
88. 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 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 FDCP A and/or each separate and discrete incident in which
each of the 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 ofthis 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 V.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 may provide.
COUNT III - RESPONDENT SUPERIOR - AGAINST NEXTEL
89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
90. Defendant Nextel is liable under a Respondent Superior or Vicarious Liability theory for
the actions of its agents.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has incurred damages and respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment is his favor and against Defendant Chase in an amount in excess
of $30,000.00, together with costs of suit and attorney fees where applicable by statute.
COUNT IV - PRIVATE NUISANCE
(Against Nextel Partners Inc., and Bureau of Recovery LLC.)
91. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as if fully set forth herein.
92. Agents of both defendants harassed Plaintiff and her employer, and became a nuisance in
that their conduct was the legal cause of the invasion of Plaintiff's private use and
enjoyment of their property and home.
93. Defendant's invasion was intentional, unreasonable and/or reckless and negligent.
94. Defendant caused Plaintiff's telephone to ring repeatedly.
95. Defendant discussed the alleged debt with Plaintiff's employer and cause Plaintiff to be
harassed, intimidated and generally uncomfortable at work and to be contacted at home
regarding defendant's conduct, by her employer.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has incurred damages and respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment is his favor and against Defendant Chase in an amount in excess
of $30,000.00, together with costs of suit and attorney fees where applicable by statute.
COUNT V - DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. LIBEL AND SLANDER PER SE
(Against Nextel Partners Inc., and Bureau of Recovery LLC)
96. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein.
97. Agents of defendant discussed Plaintiff's financial problems with Plaintiff's employer.
98. Agents of defendant repeatedly made disparaging comments to Plaintiff and about
Plaintiff to her employer.
99. Agents of defendant probed Plaintiff's employer about her personal business.
100. These statements are false, defamatory and otherwise harassing to Plaintiff.
101. It is extreme and outrageous to discuss Plaintiff's financial matters with third parties.
102. It is extreme and outrageous to contact Plaintiff's employer and make false statements.
103. As a result of defendant's defamatory statements, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, per se.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has incurred damages and respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment is his favor and against Defendant Chase in an amount in excess
of $30,000.00, together with costs of suit and attorney fees where applicable by statute.
COUNT VI - CLASS ACTION (AGAINST NEXTEL PARTNERS INC,
AND BUREAU OF RECOVERY LLc')
104. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the forgoing as if fully set forth herein.
105. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing as iffully set forth herein.
106. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 23, permits a class action if certain criteria are met.
107. The FDCPA permits class action, 15 U.S.c. sI692k(a)(2)(B).
108. In this case, defendant contacted Plaintiffs employer and repeatedly harassed Plaintiff at
her place of employment.
109. Plaintiff has reason to believe that it is a common business practice of Nextel and its
agents to contact individual consumers at his or her place of employment.
110. Plaintiff believe and therefore avers that both defendants routinely harass individuals at
his or her place of employment.
Ill. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Nextel routinely hires Bureau of Recovery in
an attempt to harass, intimidate and confuse consumer debtors regarding their alleged
debt.
112. This practice never affords the consumer debtor an opportunity to dispute the alleged
debt.
113. This practice confuses, deceives and misleads the consumer as to who is actually
collecting the alleged debt.
114. This action seeks a declaration that the common and routine business practice of Nextel
and Bureau of Recovery to contact consumer debtors at their place of employment, in a
harassing, misleading, and deceptive manner, violated both state and federal law.
115. This action seeks a declaration that defendant's common and routine business practice of
hiring a debt collector to misrepresent that the collection agency is the original creditor
is misleading, confusing and/or deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer and
therefore, violated the FDCP A.
116. This action seeks a declaration that defendant's collection practices violated the state law
and the FDCP A.
117. The Class consists of all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who received
telephone calls at his or her place of employment.
118. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class.
119. It is unknown how many contacts were made by Nextel and Bureau of Recovery, as
such, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the number exceeds 100 persons.
120. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all members of the Class.
121. This Class Action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.
122. 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.
123. 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. Plaintiff's counsel, attorneys Saracco and Rosen,
participated as attorneys in class actions brought pursuant to the FDCP A.
124. Given the nature of defendants' practices, it is likely that other consumers in
Pennsylvania have been harmed by these practices.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. 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 further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
Dated: 7/11106 By: !~n 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
.' "
~
~ 0 '...)
t c" .:;:'
~ ~ ,..:.;-., "ii
~ c.__ .-,
.,
(" h-I
Q\ . ,
~ '^ - --.,
"'- ~
"" "- ~ --
I:l. ~ ~ ~ \ ~-,
..'-'"
"- _..-
",..',
"-' ..
. r~"_.
~ ~ ~ . .<
~
,.
tJ~-3sqO
Sharon M. O'Donnell
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717)651-3503
Attorneys for Defendant. Bureau of Recovery
RUTH RUSSELL,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL Y ANIA
v.
CASE NO.: 1:06-CY-404
BUREAU OF RECOVERY, LLC, and
NEXTELPARTNERS, INC.,
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION LAW
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant, Bureau of
Recovery, LLC, only, in the above captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
LEMAN & GOGGIN
ON M. O'DONNELL, ESQ.
O. 79457
420 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
(717) 651-3503
".
..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all
counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
first-class postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, and addressed as follows:
Deanna Lynn Saracco, Esquire
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, P A 17025
Nextel Partners, Inc.
4500 Carillon Point
Kirkland, W A 98033
MARSHALL,DENNEHEY,WARNE~
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
DATE: ~i/"'4o"
\05_ A \LIAB\SMODONNELL\SLPG\229860\JLKA W ALEC\15000\50000
()
c
~
'"""'\--'
rTiri;,
-70""
Z
U')
-<.
~;:
~~(-,-,.
~~
-7
""-
::c!
"
t-...>
=
<=
<::f"
):100
c::
G"')
N
W
~
~::D
~oF.;
:rJ9
~Q
s~~
,<,- tf.t
D
~
-<
-0
:!::
N
..
(...>
CJI
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RUTH RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
BUREAU OF RECOVERY LLC., and
NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
O&"3~9()
CUcil }-le: 1.06-C'I-404
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT
AND NOW comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and files this Praecipe to
Reinstate the Complaint in the above captioned matter. Plaintiff resolved her dispute with the
defendant, Bureau of Recovery, LLC, however, has not yet resolved the matter with Defendant
Nextell Partners, Inc.
Dated: It> /7/ ~~
By:
eanna Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenrnont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750, Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com
.....,.-t,-'\
f:-)
f'~
~-~,
r--..:>
,=
(:::::::>
0'"
C)
C)
..-\
01
J
"n
-I
:r:-r}
rrt r-
t:;
<~"'-
I
{;;':,")
*\';)
-......
'-:-,k.
r' ,,~ ~
",";# ..... ~
.."-:::;r-n
':::\
~:~
---
l";':?
~-
-
-.t
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
RUTH RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
BUREAU OF RECOVERY LLC., and
NEXTEL PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
ot.o ' 3090
Civil No:.l :96 CV -404
PRAECIPE TO DISMISS DEFENDANT BUREAU OF RECOVERY. LLC.
WITH PREJUDICE
AND NOW comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and files this Praecipe to
Dismiss defendant Bureau of Recovery, LLC, from the above captioned matter. Plaintiff
resolved her dispute with the defendant, Bureau of Recovery, LLC, and the matter may now
be marked closed as to Bureau of Recovery, LLC. To date, Plaintiff has not yet resolved the
matter with Defendant Nextell Partners, Inc.
Dated: 10 /71 oro
By:
De a Lynn Saracco, Attorney for Plaintiff
76 Greenmont Drive
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
Telephone 717-732-3750, Fax 717-728-9498
Email: SaraccoLaw@aol.com
Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on
attorney for Bureau of Recovery, LLC., via U.S. First Class Mail as follows:
Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esquire
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B
Harrisburg, P A 17112
Dated: If) /7 JOj;
By:
jJ(A -
0 r--.;)
c: = 0
c:::::>
-.... ~ ~ (.;J....... "
r a --:4
C)
-.,.
~ P I
"- - 0''"\
<>J c;-
W ~
~ CCl ~)
-i v- ..C-
,
('" !".:J
c.-