Debt Collection Lawsuits Archives

Professional Debt Mediation: From Our Case Files

Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, against Professional Debt Mediation. Our client alleges that when Professional Debt Mediation initially contacted him, they told him that he would be arrested if he failed to immediately pay the debt. They also told him that if he paid the debt immediately, they wouldn’t file a lawsuit against him. Also, during the first contact, the representative of Professional Debt Mediation failed to inform our client that they were attempting to collect a debt, and that anything he said would be used for that purpose. Professional Debt Mediation contacted third parties after they had already spoken to our client and disclosed the existence of the debt. The representative called our client’s sister-in-law and left a message saying that it “was in her best interest” to have our client call them. The representative of Professional Debt Mediation also left a message for our client’s father-in-law regarding his debt. Professional Debt Mediation called both his and his wife’s cell phone on a daily basis. They also called our client between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on multiple occasions.

The lawsuit charges that Professional Debt Mediation violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by threatening to take legal action without actually intending to do so; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; by contacting third parties for purposes other than to obtain location information; by revealing debt information to third parties; by misrepresenting that our client had committed a crime; by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient; by failing to inform our client that the phone call was an attempt to collect a debt; by calling before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.; by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt; and by informing third parties of our client’s debt and stating that our client owed a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Professional Debt Mediation violated the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.

Helping a Client with Performant Recovery

Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, against Performant Recovery. Our client alleges that Performant Recovery began to call her home phone in order to collect a debt. The collector at Performant Recovery told our client that the debt belonged to a certain person, and our client informed them that she was not that person, that person did not live at her house and could not be reached at her number. Our client told Performant Recovery to cease any future calls to her residence line in its efforts to collect the debt. Even though Performant Recovery knew it was calling the wrong number, it continued to hound our client with their phone calls. Our client called Performant Recovery to try and inform them that they were calling the wrong number, but was told that since her number was the contact number on file for the debtor, they would continue to call. Performant Recovery continued to call our client, and she was forced to call them several times to repeat her request that they cease calling her residential line looking for the other person. During one of these calls, a representative from Performant Recovery accused our client of harassment for calling them to advise them that they had the wrong number for the debtor. In another call, the same representative told our client that she was “done listening to hysterics,” and that our client would have “problems” if she continued to call Performant Recovery. Later that day, our client told Performant Recovery that she would seek legal action for the harassing telephone calls, and a representative from Performant replied “Tell it to a judge,” and then terminated the call.

The lawsuit charges that Performant Recovery violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by using profane and abusive language; and by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Performant Recovery violated the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that they violated our client’s privacy.

NRG Assets: From Our Case Files

Monday, June 17th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, against NRG Assets. Our client alleges that NRG Assets began to make phone calls to both her home telephone and place of employment in an attempt to collect a $700 debt. She told the representative at NRG Assets that she was prohibited from receiving such calls at her place of employment, and requested that they cease all calls there. Our client also wrote two letters to NRG Assets requesting that it cease all communication with her at both her home and work phone numbers. NRG Assets ignored her requests and letters and placed at least three more calls to her place of employment. When NRG Assets called our client at work, they repeatedly asked her to provide verification that she actually worked there. During one call, they demanded to speak to her manager. During another conversation, NRG Assets threatened our client that they would “send someone out” to serve her to pursue legal action against her. NRG Assets misleadingly informed our client that she had already missed her court date on another occasion. In other conversations, NRG Assets threatened to garnish our client’s wages, although they did not have the ability to do that without first obtaining a court judgment. Additionally, NRG Assets failed to send our client written validation of the debt.

The lawsuit charges that NRG Assets violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by threatening to take legal action without actually intending to do so; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; by failing to send a validation notice; by misrepresenting the character, amount, and legal status of a debt; by continuing collection efforts even though the debts had not been verified; by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient; by contacting our client as her workplace, knowing that her employer prohibited such calls and by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that NRG Assets violated the Texas Debt Collection Act, and invaded our client’s privacy.

Helping a Client with GC Services

Friday, June 14th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, against GC Services. Our client alleges that during his first communication with GC Services, the representative asked him to verify his identity. Once he did, they requested his social security number, which our client refused to provide. This happened in every communication with GC Services, and each time when our client refused to provide his social security number, the collector from GC Services would terminate the call. Shorter after that, GC Services would place another call to our client and ask him to provide his social security number in an effort to harass and cause him a great deal of aggravation. During several calls, our client asked that GC Services identify their company name and the purpose of the call, but they refused to provide the information to him.

The lawsuit charges that GC Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by not disclosing the identity of the debt collection agency during a call and by failing to inform our client that the phone call was an attempt to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that GC Services violated the Texas Debt Collection Act and invaded our client’s privacy.

Helping Clients with Alpha Recovery Corp

Thursday, June 13th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, against Alpha Recovery Corp. Our client alleges that Alpha Recovery Corp called her cell phone and place of employment in an attempt to collect a debt. During the first phone call to her work, our client informed Alpha Recovery Corp that she wasn’t able to receive personal calls at work and asked Alpha Recovery Corp to stop calling her workplace. They did not stop, and in fact they called her so much that her managers had to ask Alpha Recovery Corp to stop calling. The collection agency also called our client’s cell phone. On one day, our client alleges that Alpha Recovery Corp called her cell phone 4 times in a 20-minute period. On at least one occasion, our client told Alpha Recovery Corp that she was disputing the amount of debt that they claimed she owed. Alpha Recovery Corp responded by telling our client that she was refusing to pay the debt. Alpha also allegedly told our client that she should obtain a loan to pay the debt by noon on a certain date. They also told her that the matter had “gone to state” and that “they’re trying to figure out why you haven’t paid this debt!” Alpha Recovery Corp told our client that her credit would “suffer this month” if she did not pay the debt. They also told her that if she didn’t pay it, she would be responsible for their fees in addition to the amount of the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Alpha Recovery Corp violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt; by contacting our client at her workplace, knowing that her employer prohibited such calls; by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient; by misrepresenting that our client had committed a crime; by misrepresenting the character, amount, and legal status of a debt; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by threatening to communicate false credit information; and by engaging in harassing behavior. The lawsuit also charges that Alpha Recovery Corp violated the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Helping Clients with Allied Fidelity Services

Wednesday, June 12th, 2013 at 12:18 pm  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, against Allied Fidelity Services. Our client alleges that Allied Fidelity Services began contacting her in an attempt to collect a debt by placing numerous calls to her place of employment. During the first call, she told them that she could not take personal calls at her workplace and asked that Allied Fidelity Services cease all calls to her work phone number. Immediately after this call, Allied Fidelity Services called her back at work and continued to call her there on a daily basis. This was despite her demand that they cease all phone calls to her workplace. In fact, they called her at work so frequently that her employer warned her about the prohibition of receiving personal calls while at work. In addition, Allied Fidelity Services failed to send our client written validation of the debt, including a notice of her rights under federal law.

The lawsuit charges that Allied Fidelity Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by causing a telephone to ring repeatedly, with the intent to annoy or abuse; by failing to send a validation notice; by contacting our client at a place and time known to be inconvenient; and by contacting our client at her workplace, knowing that her employer prohibited such calls. The lawsuit also charges that Allied Fidelity Services violated the Texas Debt Collection Act.

L&A Assists a Client with Convergent Outsourcing

Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, against Convergent Outsourcing. Our client alleges that Convergent Outsourcing began calling her on her cell phone to collect a debt from someone she does not know. When our client answered the phone, she was never connected to a live representative from Convergent Outsourcing. Most times, Convergent Outsourcing’s telephone system would terminate the call after a period of silence, and other times wouldn’t recognize that the phone had been answered and wouldn’t connect our client to a representative no matter how long she waited.

When our client did not answer Convergent Outsourcing’s calls, they would sometimes leave a prerecorded message on her voicemail directing the person who owed the debt to return the call. Time and again, our client called that Convergent Outsourcing phone number in an effort to stop the calls. Every time, she was greeted with a prerecorded message asking her to hold to speak with a representative. Although she waited, she was always routed to a voicemail system asking her to leave a message. Each time, she left a message with her cell phone number and told Convergent Outsourcing that they were calling the wrong number and to stop calling. Nevertheless, Convergent Outsourcing continued to call.

The lawsuit charges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; and by causing a phone to ring repeatedly and engaging our client in telephone conversations with the intent to annoy and harass. The lawsuit also charges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Helping a Client with Convergent Outsourcing

Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 7:10 pm  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, against Convergent Outsourcing. Our client alleges that Convergent Outsourcing called on both his home and cell phones trying to collect a debt. Our client says that, at least once, Convergent Outsourcing called as early as 6:00 in the morning. Moreover, Convergent Outsourcing never told our client that the debt they were trying to collect was beyond the statute of limitations. When our client told Convergent Outsourcing that the debt was time-barred, Convergent Outsourcing misleadingly alleged that our client had made a payment in 1999. Our client explained that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy in 1993. Even though our client asked that Convergent Outsourcing stop calling, Convergent Outsourcing continued to call in an attempt to collect the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by calling before 8:00 a.m.; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by misrepresenting the character, amount, and legal status of a debt; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; and by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Convergent Outsourcing violated the Texas Debt Collection Act.

Stephens and Michaels Associates: From Our Case Files

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, against Stephens & Michaels Associates. Our client alleges that Stephens & Michaels Associates called his cell phone and spoke to his wife. During that conversation, our client alleges that Stephens & Michaels Associates said that it was calling about a legal matter that had criminal implications for our client. The next day, a collector from Stephens & Michaels Associates called claiming that he was researching a personal matter involving a debt owed to him and that criminal charges might be filed against our client. When our client asked, the person on the phone denied he was a debt collector and said that he was an attorney. In every call, our client disputed the debt and told the caller that the debt was beyond the statute of limitations. Our client was told he was still liable for the debt and the caller threatened to immediately file a lawsuit if our client didn’t pay. Stephens & Michaels Associates also claimed that the state attorney’s office would indict our client for stealing money.

Stephens & Michaels Associates also began calling our client’s friend, telling his friend that our client was “in a lot of trouble.” Although the friend asked that Stephens & Michaels Associates stop calling, they continued to call.

The lawsuit charges that Stephens & Michaels Associates violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by contacting third parties for purposes other than to obtain location information; by revealing debt information to third parties; by contacting our client after having received a cease and desist letter; by engaging in harassing behavior; by failing to disclose the identity of the debt collection agency; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by misrepresenting the character, amount, and legal status of a debt; by threatening to take legal action without actually intending to do so; by misrepresenting that our client had committed a crime; by failing to inform our client that the phone call was an attempt to collect a debt; and by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Stephens & Michaels Associates violated the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and that Stephens & Michaels Associates invaded our client’s privacy and engaged in public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.

Frontline Asset Strategies: From Our Case Files

Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, against Frontline Asset Strategies. Our client alleges that Frontline Asset Strategies garnished her tax return for over $2,600, leaving her with a balance due of about $65. Frontline Asset Strategies called her and demanded that she pay over $2,700. When our client explained that she had the majority of the debt had been paid, Frontline Asset Strategies refused to acknowledge that, and insinuated that our client was a liar. When she asked for their company name, they refused to disclose it. In addition, after asking to speak to a manager, our client was placed on hold for over a half hour, and was forced to disconnect the call.

The lawsuit charges that Frontline Asset Strategies violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by not disclosing the identity of the debt collection agency during a call; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by misrepresenting the amount of a debt; and by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Frontline Asset Strategies violated the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

 Page 1 of 15  1  2  3  4  5 » ...  Last »