Archive for 'fdcpa'

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  
Leave your comment

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  
Comments (1)

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.

Ruben and Rosenthal: From Our Case Files

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

On behalf of our clients, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, against Ruben & Rosenthal. Our client alleges that Ruben & Rosenthal called her home phone two to three times a day, and that Ruben & Rosenthal also placed robocalls. The robocalls stated that there was an “urgent message” for our client, and provided a contact number. During the phone conversations, Ruben & Rosenthal didn’t mention their company name and didn’t state that they were calling to collect a debt. Instead, Ruben & Rosenthal identified themselves as attorneys calling about a debt that our client was in “trouble” for.

Our client explained to Ruben & Rosenthal that she could not afford to pay the debt (which was for ambulance services), and asked Ruben & Rosenthal to stop calling. Nevertheless, Ruben & Rosenthal continued to call and to robocall about the debt. During conversations, Ruben & Rosenthal would demand that our client make a payment that same evening or Ruben & Rosenthal would seek legal action against our client. Our client alleges that, during one conversation, a Ruben & Rosenthal debt collector told her that the “worst f-ing thing they ever did was save your life!” and that she should go ask her “mommy” or her friends for money to pay the debt. In addition, our client alleges that a Ruben & Rosenthal debt collector threatened to seize her property, including “everything down to the dishes right in front of you!”

Ruben & Rosenthal also talked to our client’s mother about the debt, and at one point asked our client if she had gone to a pawn shop or received any Christmas money that could be used to pay the debt. Moreover, when our client told Ruben & Rosenthal that she had attorney representation, Ruben & Rosenthal refused to take the contact information, and continued to contact her to collect the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Ruben & Rosenthal violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by engaging in harassing behavior; by informing third parties of our client’s debt and stating that our client owed a debt; by contacting our client knowing she was represented by an attorney; by using profane and abusive language; by placing calls without disclosing the identity of the debt collection agency; by using false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt; by misleading our client into believing communication was from a law firm or attorney; by threatening to take action that could not be taken or that was not intended to be taken; by failing to inform our client that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt; by using unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt; by failing to sent an initial letter within five days of initial contact; and by failing to send a validation notice stating our client’s right to dispute the debt. The lawsuit also charges that Ruben & Rosenthal violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

Medical Business Bureau: From Our Case Files

Saturday, May 4th, 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 Kentucky, against Medical Business Bureau. Our client alleges that he contacted Medical Business Bureau after Medical Business Bureau reported a debt on his credit report. During the conversation, our client informed Medical Business Bureau that he had been paying the creditor, and then faxed Medical Business Bureau a request to provide validation of the debt or to remove the account from his credit report. Medical Business Bureau subsequently confirmed receipt of our client’s fax, but said that they refused to remove the account or conduct an investigation into the date. Our client still has not received validation of the debt.

The lawsuit charges that Medical Business Bureau 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 communication false credit information; by failing to report to the credit bureaus that the debt was disputed; by employing false and deceptive means to collect a debt; by failing to send an initial letter within five days of initial contact; and by continuing collection efforts even though the debt had not been verified. The lawsuit also charges that Medical Business Bureau violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

FTC Settles with Security Credit Services and Jacob Law Group

Friday, May 3rd, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it had reached a settlement with Security Credit Services and Jacob Law Group over allegations that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the FTC Act. Security Credit Services, a debt buyer, and Jacob Law Group, a debt collection law firm, agreed to pay almost $800,000 in restitution.

The FTC alleged that the debt collectors “deceptively charged consumers a fee for payments authorized by telephone.” According to the FTC press release, Jacob Law Group would allegedly insist upon immediate payment and take electronic checks, credit card payments, and debit card payments over the phone, but tell them that they had to pay $18.95 to do so. In addition, the FTC alleged that they falsely threatened to sue consumers in order to get them to pay.

Lemberg & Associates Wins $350,000 Class Action Award Against Debt Collectors Portfolio Recovery Associates

Thursday, March 28th, 2013 at 6:58 pm  
Leave your comment

On behalf of Jason Zimmerman and other consumers, Lemberg & Associates (www.stopcollector.com) has won a $350,000 class action award against debt collection agency Portfolio Recovery Associates for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This is the largest reported judgment in a Fair Debt Collection class action case. According to Sergei Lemberg, who was labeled the “most active consumer attorney” of 2012 by debt collection industry insider WebRecon LLC, “We are gratified that the judge saw it fit to impose a significant, meaningful penalty for PRA’s intentional violations of the FDCPA.”

The court ruled that Portfolio Recovery Associates violated the FDCPA by sending 990 consumers debt collection correspondence that simulated legal process. The package consisted of a letter plus a set of legal-looking documents, such as a draft Summons and Complaints. According to Lemberg, “The FDCPA prohibits dissemination of fake legal papers on its face. The court rightfully labeled Portfolio Recovery Associates’ behavior ‘unscrupulous.’”

Portfolio Recovery’s unscrupulous behavior was just one of the factors the court used in determining the $350,000 award. According to Lemberg, “We were pleased that the judge noted that Portfolio Recovery’s FDCPA violations were ‘intentional’ and ‘egregious,’ and that a sizeable award was appropriate.” Indeed, the judge wrote, “The sanction imposed must be sufficient to deter PRA from engaging in abusive practices in the future.”

The court determined that each class member who returned the appropriate claim form would receive $500, that the lead plaintiff, Mr. Zimmerman, would receive $1,500, and that any remaining monies would be awarded “to a non-profit organization working to curb abusive debt collection practices or to increase consumer awareness of such practices.”

Lemberg concluded, “It’s fitting that a portion of the award will go to consumer advocacy organizations. The court’s decision should a clear message to debt collectors that they will be held accountable when they engage in shady practices.”

This release references Zimmerman v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 09 Civ. 4602 (PGG)).

NRA Group: From Our Case Files

Thursday, March 21st, 2013 at 5:00 am  
Leave your comment

On behalf of our client, Lemberg & Associates recently filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, against NRA Group. Our client alleges that NRA Group contacted him in order to collect a $32 medical bill. Our client explained that he couldn’t pay the bill and was in the process of filing for bankruptcy. He asked NRA Group to cease communications with him. Nonetheless, NRA Group continued to call his cell phone, telling him that they would continue to call until the debt was paid. In addition, NRA Group threatened to take legal action unless the debt was paid.

The lawsuit charges that NRA Group 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 misrepresenting the character, amount, and legal status 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; and by failing to send a validation notice. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that NRA Group violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and invaded our client’s privacy.

 Page 1 of 19  1  2  3  4  5 » ...  Last »