IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Plaintiff, Docket 3:08-cv JMM (JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY) The Law Office of Harrison Ross Byck, P.C., William Seltzer, DBG Collection, Inc., and CACH, LLC, Defendants FILED ELECTRONICALLY AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. ("the Act"), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d), which permits an action under the Act to be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. 3. Venue in this district is proper in that the Defendants transact business here and the conduct complained of is alleged to have occurred here.

2 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 2 of 8 III. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff,, is a 67-year-old widow residing at Kingston, Pennsylvania Defendant The Law Office of Harrison Ross Byck, P.C. ( Law Office ) is a professional corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts in this state with a place of business located at 229 Plaza Boulevard, Suite 112, Morrisville, PA 19067, and is a debt collector as defined by the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 6. Defendant DBG Collection, Inc., ( DBG ) is a corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts in this state with a place of business located at 229 Plaza Boulevard, Suite 112, Morrisville, PA 19067, and is a debt collector as defined by the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 7. Defendant William Seltzer a/k/a Paul Tyler ( Seltzer ) is a natural person employed by Law Office and/or DBG as a collector at all times relevant to this Amended Complaint and is a debt collector as defined by the Act,15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 8. Defendant CACH, LLC, ( CACH ) is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts in this state with its principal place of business located at 4340 South Monaco Street, Second Floor, Denver, Colorado 80237, and is a debt collector as defined by the Act, 15

3 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 3 of 8 U.S.C. 1692a(6). IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM 9. On or before May 6, 2008, DBG began attempting to collect from Plaintiff an alleged obligation which was a debt as that term is defined by the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5). 10. On or before May 6, 2008 DBG and/or Law Office caused to be mailed a letter to Plaintiff ( the Letter ). 11. A true and correct copy of the Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12. The Letter contains a mechanically generated reproduction of the signature of Harrison Ross Byck, Esq. ( Attorney Byck ). 13. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the Letter is a form letter sent out in bulk by DBG and/or Law Office and that Attorney Byck did not have any meaningful involvement in the sending of the Letter, nor did he directly control or supervise the process by which the Letter was sent to Plaintiff. 14. The Letter gives the impression that this debt is being directly pursued by Attorney Byck, when in fact, the debt is being pursued by DBG. 15. To further this perception, Seltzer gives the impression that he is an employee of Law Office and/or Attorney Byck, when in fact, he is an

4 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 4 of 8 employee of DBG. 16. Attorney Byck failed to disclose in his letter to Plaintiff that he is employed by DBG. 17. Rather, Attorney Byck held himself out as a self-employed attorney/debt collector. 18. Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using false, deceptive or misleading representations or means to collect any debt. 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692e(10). 19. Attorney Byck s letter was false, deceptive and misleading since he was not a self-employed attorney, but rather was employed by Defendant DBG. 20. The instant debt was not referred to Attorney Byck s law office for legal action. Rather, Attorney Byck was an employee or in-house lawyer for Defendant DBG. 21. The letter to plaintiff was designed by the Defendants to intimidate, deceive and mislead Plaintiff into thinking that DBG had referred the account to legal counsel for disposition, when that was not the case. 22. DBG and/or Law Office caused a telephone call to be placed to phone number

5 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 5 of The aforementioned phone number was assigned to the address identified in paragraph 4 at all times relevant to this matter. 24. During the phone call Seltzer spoke with Plaintiff and identified himself as Paul Tyler. 25. Seltzer told Plaintiff that the sheriff would come and take the contents of her house if she did not pay the debt. 26. DBG and/or Law Office thereafter caused a second telephone call to be placed to phone number. 27. During that second call Plaintiff was again told that the sheriff would be notified. 28. In each of these calls, the caller failed to meaningfully disclose the caller s identity, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d(6). 29. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that CACH was the holder of this alleged debt at all times relevant hereto, acquired this alleged debt after it was in default, and enlisted DGB and/or Law Office to collect the debt. 30. At all times relevant hereto, DGB, Law Office and Seltzer were acting on behalf of and as an agent of CACH in attempting to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to CACH.

6 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 6 of CACH is directly and vicariously liable for the conduct of DGB, Law Office and Seltzer in attempting to collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. 32. Defendants violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692, including subsections d, d(6), e, e(3), e(5), f, g and j. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for statutory damages, costs, attorney's fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. V. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable. Respectfully Submitted, s/ Kenneth W. Pennington Kenneth W. Pennington Sabatini Law Firm Attorney for Plaintiff 142 N. Washington Ave., Ste. 800 Scranton, PA Phone (570) Facsimile (570) kpecf@bankruptcypa.com Bar Number: PA 68353

7 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 7 of 8 Exhibit A The Letter

8 Case 3:08-cv JMM Document 12 Filed 03/18/2009 Page 8 of 8 Exhibit A