Case Number XXX I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O., prepare immigration documents for customers for a

Transcription

1 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION Case Number XXX A.C.G., J.G.M., on behalf of themselves and ) all others similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) E.G.O. d/b/a Company X, E.R.O., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) I. INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O., prepare immigration documents for customers for a fee. They operate under a sole proprietorship owned by Defendant E.G.O. which is called Company X ( Company X ). Defendant Eiblys G. E.G.O. also has a regular radio program on which he gives immigration advice to callers and advises them to use Company X s immigration services. Neither Defendant E.G.O. nor Defendant E.R.O. is an attorney in the United States nor is either of them accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide immigration services or legal advice to clients. 2. Plaintiffs are customers of Defendants who seek to bring class claims for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act., N.C.G.S , and negligence per se, based on Defendants provision of legal advice and services for a fee. 1

2 II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 1. Venue is proper in Durham County pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-82, because Plaintiff A.C.G. resides in Durham County, and Defendants maintain a place of business in Durham County. III. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff A.C.G. ( A.C.G. ) is a U.S. citizen and a resident of Durham County, North Carolina. She is married to R.G., a citizen of Mexico. Plaintiff A.C.G. is a former customer of Defendants. Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband used Defendants immigration services between 2004 and Plaintiff J.G.M. ( J.G.M. ) is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Wilson County, North Carolina. He is a former customer of Defendants. Plaintiff J.G.M. used Defendants immigration services between 2003 and Defendant E.G.O. resides in Wake County. He owns a sole proprietorship providing immigration services under the assumed name Company X, with offices in Wake County, North Carolina and Durham County, North Carolina. He also previously had an office providing immigration services, also with the name Company X, in Wilson County, North Carolina. 6. Defendant E.R.O. resides in Wake County. She is the wife of Defendant E.G.O.. She works in the offices of Company X providing immigration services. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Factual Allegations Pertaining to All Plaintiffs and Members of the Plaintiff Class 2

3 7. Defendant E.G.O. is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of North Carolina. 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant E.G.O. is not an attorney licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. 9. Defendant E.G.O. is not accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide immigration assistance. 10. Defendant E.R.O. is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of North Carolina. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant E.R.O. is not an attorney licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. 12. Defendant E.R.O. is not accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide immigration assistance. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant E.G.O. s sole proprietorship, Company X employs no licensed attorneys to provide immigration services. 14. Defendant E.G.O. is currently licensed as a notary public in the state of North Carolina. 15. Defendant E.R.O. was licensed as a notary public in the state of North Carolina during all times relevant to this law suit, until December The duties of a notary public in North Carolina to the public are outlined in N.C.G.S. 10B-20 (i) through (n). According to N.C.G.S. 10B-20 (i) through (n), notaries in North Carolina are prohibited from representing or advertising that the notary public is an immigration consultant or expert on immigration matters and are prohibited from rendering any service that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and shall not claim to have 3

4 powers, qualifications, rights, or privileges that the office of notary does not provide, including the power to counsel on immigration matters. Notaries are also required to post signs and include information in all advertisements explaining that they are not attorneys and that they may not give legal advice. 17. Defendants are further barred from practicing law in the state of North Carolina by N.C.G.S According to N.C.G.S. 84-4, persons who are not members of the North Carolina State Bar are may not by word, sign, letter, or advertisement, hold out himself, or themselves, as competent or qualified to give legal advice or counsel, or to prepare legal documents, or as being engaged in advising or counseling in law or acting as attorney or counselor-at-law, or in furnishing the services of a lawyer or lawyers; and it shall be unlawful for any person or association of persons except active members of the Bar, for or without a fee or consideration, to give legal advice or counsel, perform for or furnish to another legal services or to prepare for another person, firm or corporation, any other legal document. 18. Under the North Carolina statutes, practicing law is defined in N.C.G.S as: performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation and filing of petitions for use in any court, including administrative tribunals and other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, or assisting by advice, counsel, or otherwise in any legal work; and to advise or give opinion upon the legal rights of any person, firm or corporation. 19. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants were doing business providing immigration law services to paying customers, including filling out immigration paperwork to submit to Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State. 4

5 20. Upon information and belief, during time periods relevant to this complaint, Defendants advertised their services using the business name Company X on the Spanishlanguage radio station WETC 540 AM, broadcast from Wake County, North Carolina. 21. Defendants radio commercial states that Company X provides immigration services at a low cost, including assisting customers to apply for legal permanent residency and citizenship. 22. Defendants radio commercial does not state that no one who works at Company X is an attorney, nor does it state that no one who works at Company X is accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide immigration services. 23. For some or all of the time relevant to this case, Defendant E.G.O. has conducted a weekly radio program on radio station WETC 540 AM in which he dispenses advice on immigration law to callers. On the radio program, Defendant E.G.O. also tells callers to visit the Company X offices to receive further assistance in their immigration cases. 24. On his radio program, callers frequently refer to Defendant E.G.O. as abogado, which is Spanish for lawyer. 25. Defendant E.G.O. has repeatedly failed to correct callers when they call him abogado or explain to listeners that he is not a lawyer. 26. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also advertised their services as notarios or notaries public. 27. In Mexico, a notario público is a lawyer with credentials beyond that of most Mexican lawyers. 28. At their storefront offices, Defendants dispensed advice on immigration law to customers. 5

6 29. Defendants also helped customers prepare immigration applications to be sent to Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of State. Those departments then adjudicated the applications and made decisions on the applicants eligibility for visas and other immigration benefits. 30. Defendants charged customers a fee for the immigration advice and services they provided. 31. Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O. had an agreement, express or implied, pursuant to which they both engaged in the actions that are alleged in this complaint, and as a consequence of which both Defendants actions alleged in this complaint were done in furtherance of a conspiracy between them. 32. While Defendant E.G.O. was the owner of Company X, Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O. had an express or implied agreement that they would both work in the Company X office providing immigration services. 33. Both Defendants had notice and knowledge that the other Defendant was providing immigration advice, filling out immigration paperwork, and otherwise engaging in the work of running Company X. 34. Upon information and belief, both Defendants had notice and knowledge that the other Defendant was not qualified or licensed to provide such immigration advice and assistance. 35. Defendants agreed to perform the unlawful activities described in this Complaint pursuant to a common scheme to earn money for Defendant E.G.O. s sole proprietorship, Company X. 6

7 36. As a consequence of such conspiracy, Defendant E.R.O. is jointly and severally liable for all unfair and deceptive practices committed by Defendant E.G.O. in connection with providing immigration advice or services without qualification to do so. 37. Conversely, Defendant E.G.O. is jointly and severally liable for all unfair and deceptive practices by Defendant E.R.O. in connection with providing immigration advice or services without qualification to do so. B. Factual Allegations Pertaining to Plaintiff A.C.G. 38. Paragraphs 7 through 37 are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 39. Plaintiff A.C.G. ( A.C.G. ) is a U.S. citizen and long-time resident of North Carolina. In 2003, she married R.G., a citizen of Mexico. 40. Plaintiff A.C.G. s husband had heard Defendant E.G.O. s program on the radio and suggested that they go to his office for immigration assistance. 41. In or around December 2004, Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband first visited Defendants office in Raleigh. 42. During one of Plaintiff A.C.G. s first consultations with Defendant E.G.O., Defendant E.G.O. orally advised and represented to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband that R.G. could acquire valid legal immigration status because he was married to a U.S. citizen. 43. Defendant E.G.O. also advised Plaintiff A.C.G. that her husband had a good case without problems. 44. During the time that he provided legal services to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband, Defendant E.G.O. orally represented that he was qualified to give immigration assistance and that he knew immigration law. 7

8 45. Also during the time that he provided legal services to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband, Defendant E.G.O. orally represented that he had been to law school. 46. Between 2004 and 2008, Defendants provided a number of immigration law services to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband. 47. Defendant E.G.O. selected legal forms for Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband, filled in the blanks of those legal forms, applied law to the facts of Plaintiff A.C.G. s case, and gave legal advice to Plaintiff A.C.G Defendants charged fees to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband for each immigration law service that they provided. 49. Between 2004 and 2008, Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband paid at least $1, in fees to Defendants for immigration services. 50. In addition to these fees, Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband paid fees to Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State for submitting their immigration applications. 51. While Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband were customers of Defendants, Defendants gave incorrect or incomplete legal advice to Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband. 52. Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband of the risks that they incurred by relying on the incorrect or incomplete legal advice. 53. Defendants generally failed to advise Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband that there might be any risk in R.G. s applying for an immigrant benefits. 54. Defendants did not advise Plaintiff A.C.G. or her husband about potential legal remedies for which he may have qualified, or of potential legal arguments he could have made in his case. 8

9 55. As a result, Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband have been damaged. 56. Plaintiff A.C.G. and her husband have had to hire an immigration attorney to attempt to fix problems in R.G. s immigration case. C. Factual Allegations Pertaining to Plaintiff José J.G.M. 57. Paragraphs 7 through 37 are realleged and reincorporated by reference herein. 58. Plaintiff J.G.M. ( J.G.M. ) is a citizen of Mexico and a resident of North Carolina. 59. Plaintiff J.G.M. first visited Defendants office in Wilson, North Carolina sometime in Plaintiff J.G.M. and his father visited Defendants office to seek advice on applying for a V visa. 61. At one of Plaintiff J.G.M. s first consultations, Defendant E.R.O. orally advised and represented to Plaintiff J.G.M. and his father that that Plaintiff J.G.M. could acquire a V visa and work permit. 62. Between 2003 an 2008, Defendants provided several immigration services for Plaintiff J.G.M Defendants E.R.O. and E.G.O. selected legal forms for Plaintiff J.G.M., filled in the blanks of those legal forms, applied law to the facts of Plaintiff J.G.M. s case, and gave legal advice to Plaintiff J.G.M During the time that they provided legal services to Plaintiff J.G.M., Defendants orally represented that they were qualified to give immigration assistance and that they knew immigration law. 9

10 65. Defendants charged fees to Plaintiff J.G.M. for each immigration service that they provided. 66. In addition to the fees paid to Defendants, Plaintiff J.G.M. paid fees to Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State for submitting his immigration applications. 67. On at least two occasions while Plaintiff J.G.M. was a customer of Defendants, Defendants gave incorrect or incomplete legal advice to Plaintiff J.G.M Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff J.G.M. of the risks he incurred by relying on their incorrect or incomplete legal advice. 69. Defendants generally failed to advise Plaintiff J.G.M. that there might be any risk in his applying for an immigrant benefits. 70. As a result, Plaintiff J.G.M. has been damaged. 71. Plaintiff J.G.M. has had to hire an immigration attorney to attempt to fix problems in his immigration case. V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 72. Plaintiffs seek to pursue claims for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief in accordance with Rule 23(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure as representatives of a class defined as follows: all persons to whom Defendants provided legal assistance on an immigration matter, for compensation or Defendants expectation of compensation, within four years prior to the date of the filing of this complaint and continuing until the date judgment is entered in this action. 73. The preceding paragraphs are realleged and reincorporated by reference herein. 10

11 74. Because of Defendants actions alleged above, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class have been damaged in their property. 75. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, the class of persons to whom Defendants has provided immigration assistance during the last four years is in the hundreds or thousands. 76. Common issues of law predominate over individual issues. The questions of whether Defendants conduct has violated the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and whether it constitutes negligence per se are common to members of the class. 77. Plaintiffs legal claims concerning Defendants illegal conduct are typical of the claims of the class in that Plaintiffs A.C.G. and J.G.M. have received immigration assistance from Defendants, and have paid Defendants for that assistance. 78. Defendants actions and omissions are generally applicable to the class, making declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. 79. The named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class in that they do not have antagonistic or conflicting claims with other members of the class, and the named Plaintiffs have a sufficient interest in the outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy. 80. Plaintiffs are represented by experienced counsel who will vigorously prosecute the litigation on behalf of the class. The undersigned counsel are experienced litigators. Carlene McNulty is an experienced class action litigator and has experience bringing claims alleging unlawful business practices. Katharine Woomer-Deters has experience litigating federal and state cases on behalf of multiple Plaintiffs including cases involving immigrant clients. Daniel Rearick has experience representing clients in complex federal litigation. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiff Class) 11

12 (Violation of G.S ) 81. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 82. All Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class bring this claim against Defendants E.G.O. d/b/a Company X and Defendant E.R.O. 83. The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat Such actions are against the established public policy of the State of North Carolina; are in or affecting commerce in North Carolina; are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to the consumers of North Carolina; and have the capacity and tendency to deceive the average consumer. 85. The matters alleged were done willfully. 86. Plaintiffs suffered actual injury as a result of Defendants unfair actions. Such injury consists of the money that Plaintiffs paid to Defendants for immigration law services. 87. The named Plaintiffs and the members of the Plaintiff Class are entitled to recover, and request, damages in the amount of three times their actual injury. 88. Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class and their counsel are further entitled to recover, and request, an award of attorney fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat Plaintiffs are also entitled to seek, and do seek, injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices described above present a continuing threat to members of the class and to members of the public in that Defendants continue to engage in these practices. Such practices 12

13 will cause great and irreparable injury to class members and to the general public in that they will suffer injury similar to that of Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: paying money to Defendants for services that Defendants provide without qualification to do so. Defendants customers will thereby be damaged in their property. 90. Injunctive relief is proper because Plaintiffs, the class members, and the general public have no adequate remedy at law. Damages alone cannot compel the Defendants to cease to engage in the unfair business practices described in this action. Plaintiffs allege that the benefit to the public good, as well as to Plaintiff Class, far outweighs the inconvenience to the Defendants of ceasing to engage in violations of North Carolina s unfair and deceptive practices act, N.C.G.S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Plaintiff Class) (Negligence Per Se) 91. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 92. This claim is made by all Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class against Defendants E.G.O. d/b/a Company X and E.R.O Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs as notaries public in North Carolina, based on the provisions of N.C.G.S. 10B-20 (i) through (n). 13

14 94. As non-members of the North Carolina State Bar, Defendants also have a duty of care to not practice law in the State of North Carolina, based on the provisions of N.C.G.S Defendants breached their duty of care by providing assistance on immigration matters to Plaintiffs, including actions which constitute the unauthorized practice of law. 96. N.C.G.S and N.C.G.S. 10B-20 (i) through (n) were adopted to protect the public safety or welfare. 97. Plaintiffs are within the class of entities or individuals that N.C.G.S and N.C.G.S. 10B-20 (i) through (n) were adopted to protect. 98. Defendants could have reasonably foreseen that by providing assistance on immigration matters, including actions that constitute the unauthorized practice of law, they would cause damage to Plaintiffs. 99. Plaintiffs have in fact suffered injury as a result of Defendants breaches of duty. Such injury consists of the money that Plaintiffs paid to Defendants for immigration services Defendants E.G.O. and E.R.O. are jointly and severably liable for these breaches of duty for the reasons alleged in this Complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the class, pray: 1. That this case be allowed to proceed as a class action; 2. That Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class be awarded monetary, declarative and injunctive relief as hereinabove requested; 3. That the costs of this case and attorney fees for Plaintiffs be taxed against Defendants; and 14

15 4. That the Court award such other relief as it deems just and proper. This the day of, For the North Carolina Justice Center: Katharine Woomer-Deters North Carolina Bar #33892 Daniel Rearick North Carolina Bar # Carlene McNulty North Carolina Bar # P.O. Box Raleigh, North Carolina (919) (919) (fax) 15

16 16