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.

Convergent Outsourcing: L&A Helps a Client

Friday, May 31st, 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 California, against Convergent Outsourcing. Our client alleges that Convergent Outsourcing began calling him to collect a debt from someone he does not know. When our client answered the phone, Convergent Outsourcing’s telephone system would sometime 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.

When our client answered calls from Convergent Outsourcing, sometimes he heard a prerecorded message telling him to “please hold.” Several times, he was connected to a live representative after the prerecorded message. When he was able to speak to a real person from Convergent Outsourcing, our client provided his name. Convergent Outsourcing told our client that they were calling the wrong number and that they would no longer call. Nevertheless, Convergent Outsourcing continued to call on an almost daily basis, usually multiple times per day.

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.

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.

NCC Business Services Sues Lemberg & Associates…for What?

Monday, May 20th, 2013 at 9:52 am  
Comments (1)

Our firm has recently been sued by NCC Business Services, a debt collector. That’s right – debt collection agency NCC Business Services has filed a “class action” lawsuit against us on behalf of all the debt collection agencies that are listed on stopcollector.com. In the realm of “you’ve got to be kidding,” NCC Business Services alleged in its complaint that publishing information about NCC Business Services on our website (http://stopcollector.com/agency/NCC-Business-Services.php) constituted a violation of Florida Statutes Section 540.08, unfair competition by trademark infringement, was defamatory, and interfered with the debt collection agency’s business relationship with its customers.

What got NCC Business Services’ panties in a bunch? Apparently, when one Googles “NCC Business Services,” stopcollector.com comes up in the results. Imagine that. According to NCC Business Services, we’re tricking people into clicking on stopcollector.com instead of NCC Business Services’ website. Seriously? In the realm of the bizarre, they also alleged that Lemberg & Associates violated Florida Statutes Section 540.08 by publishing, displaying, or otherwise publicly using NCC Business Services’ name for purposes of trade, or for commercial or advertising purposes.

Why is that bizarre? Even a cursory reading of Count I (Florida Statutes Section 540.08) demonstrates that the statute refers to “natural persons.” In other words, the law says that you can’t use a real person’s name for commercial purposes without first getting their permission. That makes sense. But why didn’t NCC Business Services realize that a company is not a “natural person”? Did they get mixed up regarding the Citizens United decision? Did they listen too closely when presidential candidate Mitt Romney was overhead saying, “Corporations are people, my friend”? After we removed the case to Federal Court, a Federal Judge rightly said this claim “fails on its face.” But NCC marches on, now pursuing this meritless argument in Florida State Courts.

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.

Main Street Acquisition Corp: From Our Case Files

Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Comments (1)

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, against Main Street Acquisition Corp and Forster & Garbus. Our client alleges that Main Street, through its counsel Forster & Garbus, filed suit against him in an attempt to collect a debt. Our client alleges that Main Street and Forster & Garbus didn’t properly serve him with a summons and complaint, and subsequently obtained a default judgment against him. Later, our client’s bank told him that Main Street and Forster & Garbus tried to garnish the funds from his bank account. Because our client only had deposits that were immune from garnishment, the bank told him that they would establish a “protected amount” of funds that would prevent Main Street and Forster & Garbus from garnishing the funds.

Nevertheless, Main Street and Forster & Garbus withdrew a smaller amount from his bank account. When our client complained about the withdrawal, Main Street and Forster & Garbus returned the funds to our client. About a month later, Main Street and Forster & Garbus again attempted to garnish his funds.

The lawsuit charges that Main Street and Forster & Garbus violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt; and by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Diversified Consultants: From Our Case Files

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, against Diversified Consultants. Our client alleges that, in an attempt to collect a $100 debt to AT&T, Diversified Consultants placed numerous calls per day to his cell phone. He alleges that Diversified Consultants refused to let him speak or yelled at him. When Diversified Consultants did let him speak, he told Diversified Consultants that he did not owe the debt, and that he had confirmed with AT&T that it was paid. He requested that Diversified Consultants stop calling. Nevertheless, Diversified Consultants continued to call, and even threatened to place the debt on our client’s credit report. When our client told Diversified Consultants that he had legal representation, the debt collector hung up. Later, when he again informed Diversified Consultants that he had legal representation and gave his attorney’s contact information, Diversified Consultants laughed and hung up. Diversified Consultants called four more times.

The lawsuit charges that Diversified Consultants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by contacting our client knowing he was represented by an attorney; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by threatening to communicate false credit information; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; and by failing to send an initial letter within five days of initial contact. The lawsuit also charges that Diversified Consultants violated the Texas Debt Collection Act and invaded our client’s privacy.

Portfolio Recovery Associates: From Our Case Files

Tuesday, May 7th, 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 Michigan, against Portfolio Recovery Associates. Our client alleges that, in an attempt to collect a $119 debt, Portfolio Recovery Associates robocalled both her home and cell phone numbers daily. When she answered the phone, she heard a period of silence, after which a live representative would come on the line. Our client explained that she did not owe the month and asked that they stop calling. Nevertheless, Portfolio Recovery Associates didn’t send a validation notice and continued to call.

The lawsuit charges that Portfolio Recovery Associates violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; and by failing to send an initial letter within five days of initial contact. The lawsuit also charges that Portfolio Recovery Associates violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by robocalling our client’s cell phone without our client’s express consent and despite her requests not to be called.

Southwest Recovery Services: From Our Case Files

Monday, May 6th, 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 Kentucky, against Southwest Recovery Services. Our client alleges that Southwest Recovery Services called her in an attempt to collect a debt that did not belong to her. When Southwest Recovery Services called, they said they were looking for our client’s daughter. Southwest Recovery Services placed several calls to our client using robocalls, and sometimes called before 8:00 a.m.

Our client told Southwest Recovery Services that her daughter did not live with her and could not be reached at that number. Furthermore, our client asked Southwest Recovery Services to stop all calls and robocalls to her home number. Nevertheless, Southwest Recovery Services continued to call.

The lawsuit charges that Southwest Recovery Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by by calling before 8:00 a.m.; by engaging in harassing behavior; and by using profane and abusive language; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The lawsuit also charges that Southwest Recovery Services violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

 Page 2 of 63 « 1  2  3  4  5 » ...  Last »