Jump to content

My federal suit


Recommended Posts

The following post is a copy of my federal complaint. I will be filing it this week. I don't mind sharing it. They will all be served by this Friday, anyway.

- warning- it is long. I post it as an example. Formatting didn't carry over. Sorry, but you get the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

DIVEMEDIC )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Professional Debt Mediation Inc., Mark Rosario, )

James H. Pugh (d/b/a Polos South Apartments), )

Lana Mason, Mari del Valle, George Alexander, ) Case No:

JMG Realty )

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COME NOW, the PLAINTIFF, DIVEMEDIC, pro se, respectfully requests this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages. In support thereof, Plaintiff shows unto the Court as follows:

This is a civil action whereby Plaintiff seeks Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief enjoining Defendants, PROFESSIONAL DEBT MEDIATION, Inc., (hereafter “PDM”), Mark Rosario, James H. Pugh (d/b/a Polos South Apartments), Lana Mason, Mari del Valle, George Alexander and other conspirators, agents, servants and employees and those acting in active concert and with actual notice thereof, from engaging in further violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. (hereafter “FCRA”)), the Fair Debt collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. (hereafter “FDCPA”)), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (ss 559.72 (hereafter “FCCPA”)), and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (ss 501.201 et. seq. (hereafter “FDUTPA”)). An actual controversy exists between the parties, in that the challenged actions of the DEFENDANTS have caused and will continue to cause the PLAINTIFF substantial harm unless the requested relief is granted.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

2. Venue is proper, because many of the relevant events occurred within Osceola and Orange Counties in the State of Florida, which is located within this District.

3. Plaintiff’s Federal and State Law claims against the Defendants derive from a common focus of operative fact and are of such character that Plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding. Consequently, this court has pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims against the Defendants.

4. This is an action brought by a consumer for violations of the above named Acts in connection with a purported debt appearing on Plaintiff’s consumer reports, the defendants’ collection tactics in attempting to collect it, and the defendants’ refusal to remove or correct inaccuracies regarding it, despite written correspondence specifying the inaccuracies and providing information that would facilitate a reasonable reinvestigation of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff seeks damages and, to the extent possible, injunctive and declaratory relief.

PARTIES

5. The Plaintiff, Divemedic is a natural person residing within Orange County, in Florida.

6. The Defendant Professional Debt Mediation, Inc. is a business that is uses instruments of interstate commerce to facilitate the collecting of debts owed or asserted to be due another.

7. The Defendants Mark Rosario and George Alexander are employees of the Defendant Professional Debt Mediation Inc., and were at all times relevant to this complaint using instruments of interstate commerce to facilitate the collection of debts owed or asserted to be due another on behalf of both Professional Debt Mediation Inc., and Polos South Apartments.

8. The Defendant James H. Pugh, doing business as the Polos South Apartments, was at all times relevant to this complaint, the owner of the leasing units known as the Polos South Apartments.

9. The Defendant JMG Realty was the property management agency for the Polos South Apartments during the period inclusive of Fall 2004 to May 2006.

10. The Defendants Lana Mason and Mari del Valle were employees of Polos South Apartments and JMG Realty during the period extending from September 2005 through May 2006, and acted as the duly authorized agents for their employers.

11. All Defendants are considered a “person”, under Florida Statute 559.72.

FACTS

12. Plaintiff rented an apartment from Polos South Apartments during a period extending from August of 2003 to August of 2005. This apartment was located at XXXXXXX (hereafter “the apartment”)

13. Plaintiff is therefore a “tenant,” as defined by Florida Statute 83.43(4).

14. When the Plaintiff took possession of the apartment, he complained about damages to the apartment to the manager of the apartment complex, a Ms. Annette Blocker. Ms. Blocker informed the plaintiff that the damages could not be repaired unless the Plaintiff agreed to delay his moving in to the apartment for at least two days. Since this was not possible, the Plaintiff agreed to move in anyway, and the manager agreed to note the damages in the Plaintiff’s file.

15. More damages were sustained to the apartment during the hurricanes of 2004, and the subsequent repair activities carried out by the landlord. These damages included, but were not limited to, water damage, roof leakage, and damage to windows and screens caused by roofing material thrown down by roofing contractors.

16. Sometime during the Plaintiff’s tenancy, after the damage caused by Hurricane Charley, the management of the Polos Apartments changed to the current management company, JMG Realty, and some time thereafter, Lana Mason was named as manager of the property.

17. The Plaintiff vacated the apartment August 12, 2005, after giving 60 days notice of intent to vacate, in accordance with the lease agreement. Upon moving out, the Plaintiff turned over the keys to the apartment in an envelope, along with a letter detailing the Plaintiff’s forwarding address.

18. The security deposit of $200 was not returned within 15 days, nor was the Plaintiff notified within 30 days by certified mail at his last known address, that the landlord intended to impose a claim against this security deposit, as required by Florida State Statute 83.49(3).

19. On September 30, 2005, the defendant Professional Debt Mediation, Inc., sent a dunning letter to the Plaintiff, claiming a debt of $838.45.

20. The purported account is a “debt”, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (5) and as defined by Florida Statute 559.55 (1).

21. The Plaintiff sent a dispute and request for validation to Professional Debt Mediation Inc. on October 7, 2005. This notice was sent certified mail, return receipt requested. It was received and signed for at the offices of Professional Debt Meditation Inc., on October 12, 2005.

22. A return letter was sent from Defendant Mark Rosario at the offices of Professional Debt Mediation Inc. on October 12, 2005. Included with this letter was a statement from the Polos South Apartments specifying $1,038.45 in damages, rents and fees, minus the $200 security deposit, leaving a balance due of $838.45. This letter came along with an inspection form that read “no inspection on file” and then listed fees for damages to the apartment in the amount of $585. The form was signed by Mari del Valle and was not dated.

23. Mr. Rosario sent another letter demanding payment to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2005. In this letter, Mr. Rosario accused the Plaintiff of ignoring “previous requests for payment in full” of his “seriously delinquent account.”

24. The Plaintiff responded to the dunning letter by sending another, more detailed dispute of the claims made by PDM and the Polos, specifically disputing the charges placed on the account as they related to damages. The letter was signed for at the offices of PDM on November 2, 2005.

25. At no time did PDM or Mr. Rosario inform the Plaintiff that this dispute was frivolous or irrelevant, nor did they inform him that more information was needed to investigate the dispute.

26. On November 2, 2005, PDM placed a tradeline in the Plaintiff’s credit bureau reports, claiming a balance of $838. This tradeline did not contain any indication that it was disputed by the consumer.

27. On November 15, 2005, Mr. Rosario sent another demand for payment by U.S. mail, stating that they had made repeated attempts to contact the Plaintiff by telephone and mail, and further accusing the Plaintiff of failing to respond to their attempts at contact.

28. In December of 2005, the Plaintiff disputed the tradeline that had been placed on his Equifax credit report by PDM. The results of the reinvestigation that was completed January 12, 2006, indicated that PDM verified to Equifax that the tradeline was complete and accurate, even though the tradeline now appeared twice on the Plaintiff’s Equifax Credit report.

29. On January 27, 2006, another dispute was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the offices of PDM.

30. On February 3, 2006, the Plaintiff received a revised bill from the Polos South Apartments, asserting that the amount due was $438.45, in response to a conversation with Defendant Lana Mason. In that conversation, Ms. Mason stated that she did not work at the Polos during the time in question, and had no personal knowledge of the account. She did agree to remove the charges for damage to the carpet.

31. Ms. Mason also stated that the certified letter required by Florida Statute 83.49(3) was sent to the Plaintiff’s previous address at the apartment. In light of the fact that the Polos Apartments had his current address, this was clearly done to deny the plaintiff his right to dispute the seizure of his security deposit.

32. On March 7, 2006, PDM again confirmed to Equifax, in response to a reinvestigation request, that the balance was being reported correctly at $838, despite the revised bill.

33. On March 14, 2006, PDM also responded to a reinvestigation request from Experian by reporting that the account was complete and accurate as reported, even though the past due amount was still being incorrectly reported as $838.

34. On April 25, 2006, Ms. Mason conceded that the amount due was $288.45, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay this amount, if the tradeline could be removed from his credit reports. Ms. Mason refused to agree to remove the tradeline, stating that she was not going to reward people for not paying their bills.

35. On April 28, 2006, Mr. Rosario sent an updated bill to the Plaintiff in the amount of $250.50 by fax, along with an offer of settlement. Along with these documents, Mr. Rosario sent a copy of a letter from Ms. Mason that requested that PDM update their account records with a new balance of $288.45.

36. The Plaintiff again agreed to pay the $250.50 if PDM would agree in writing to delete the erroneous tradelines from his credit reports. Mr. Alexander then faxed over an agreement on May 2, 2006 which still did not contain the written promise to delete the tradeline.

37. Mr. Alexander then told the Plaintiff that they would not remove the tradeline, and that it was the policy of his company not to remove any tradelines from credit reports. He then accused the Plaintiff of having him on “speaker phone” and refused to talk to him unless he removed him from “speaker phone,” and then hung up.

38. On May 9, 2006, PDM again verified the tradeline on the Plaintiff’s Equifax credit file as being complete and accurate, although the tradeline still listed the past due balance as $838 and the tradeline still appeared twice on the credit file.

39. Even though PDM, Mr. Rosario, and Mr. Alexander had actual knowledge that the amount they were trying to collect was false, they still conspired to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation for credit worthiness by reporting a tradeline that was not complete and accurate, even though they had received multiple reinvestigation requests from the consumer, and from the credit reporting agencies Equifax and Experian.

40. PDM, Mr. Rosario, and Mr. Alexander reported this tradeline which they knew to be reasonably disputed to the credit reporting agencies, without notifying the agencies about the existence of the dispute.

41. Ms. Mason, Ms. del Valle, Mr. Rosario, and Mr. Alexander, while acting in their capacities as representatives of their employers, did conspire to attempt to enforce a debt when they had sufficient knowledge to know that the claim was not legitimate.

COUNT 1- VIOLATION OF THE FAIR

DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

42. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

43. The defendants Professional Debt Mediation Inc., Mark Rosario and George Alexander are debt collectors, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

44. The defendants Professional Debt Mediation Inc., Mark Rosario and George Alexander violated the FDCPA by:

45. Multiple violations of § 1692e (2)(a) and 1692e(10) for the false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt

46. Violations of § 1692e (8) communicating information which is known to be false

47. The foregoing violations of the FDCPA are among the Defendants’ standard procedures and practices towards consumers such as the Plaintiff, for which the Defendants are motivated by enhanced profits.

COUNT 2- VIOLATIONS OF THE

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

48. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

49. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., regularly and in the course of business, furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about their transactions or experiences with any consumer.

50. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., did not notify the plaintiff at any time that the dispute was considered frivolous or irrelevant, or that plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.

51. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., failed to review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agencies, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (a)(2), and as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)(B).

52. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., failed to adequately conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1) after the Plaintiff’s notice of dispute was received at the offices of Professional Debt Mediation.

53. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., failed to report the results of the investigation findings to the consumer reporting agencies that the information provided by such person was incomplete or inaccurate, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)(D).

54. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., failed to report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agencies, as required 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(B)(1)©.

55. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., in response to the notices of reinvestigation from the Credit Reporting Agencies, verified that the disputed information was accurate and complete on four different occasions, even though they were in possession of information which showed that the tradelines were inaccurate, and even though the tradelines did not contain the notice of dispute, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3). The fact that this was done in response to multiple reinvestigation requests from multiple Credit Reporting Agencies and the Plaintiff is evidence of willful noncompliance on the part of Professional Debt Mediation Inc.

COUNT 3- VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA

CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

56. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

57. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., violated Florida Statute 559.72 (3), by telling the Plaintiff that they had disclosed to the credit reporting agencies information affecting the plaintiff's reputation for credit worthiness without also informing the plaintiff that the existence of the dispute would also be disclosed.

58. Professional Debt Mediation Inc., violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), by disclosing to Equifax information affecting the plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

59. The Defendants Lana Mason, and Mari del Valle, violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), by disclosing to information affecting the Plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

60. The Defendants James Pugh and JMG Realty, violated Florida Statute 559.72 (5), as evidenced by the fact that Ms. Mason and Ms. del Valle, while acting as authorized agents for their employers, each disclosed information affecting the plaintiff's reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that information was false.

61. James Pugh and JMG Realty failed to enact reasonable rules, policies, procedures, or training to prevent their agents and employees from carrying out such destructive and deleterious actions.

62. The Defendants each separately and individually violated Florida Statute 559.72 (6), by disclosing information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the Plaintiff without disclosing that fact.

63. The Defendants each separately and individually violated Florida Statute 559.72 (9), by claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce a debt when they each knew or had reason to know that the debt was not legitimate.

COUNT 4- VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

64. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

65. The actions stated herein and carried out by the defendants were violations of Florida State and Federal Law, and are therefore unfair and/or deceptive trade practices as defined by state statute 501.203 (3).

66. Unfair and/or deceptive trade practices are a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act pursuant to 501.204 (1).

COUNT 5- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION

OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

67. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated by reference.

68. The Defendants intended to and did inflict severe emotional distress upon Plaintiff by engaging in actions that intended to harass, belittle, confuse, mislead and threaten the Plaintiff, the purpose of which was to intimidate and coerce the Plaintiff into paying a debt which was not legitimately owed, and conspired to systematically deny the Plaintiff his right to dispute the legitimacy and validity of a claimed debt.

69. The Defendants attempted to take advantage of a consumer reasonably unable to protect his interests because of an assumed ignorance and an inability to understand the legal issues and other factors involved, and therefore acted with unconscionable intent.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows:

(A) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining all of the named Defendants and other conspirators from engaging in further violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

(B) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining all of the named Defendants and other conspirators from:

1. Selling, transferring, reporting, or otherwise assigning the above named account to any other collection agency, debt collector, reseller or Credit Reporting Agency.

2. Attempting to place the Plaintiff on any “deadbeat list,” or attempting in any way to impugn the Plaintiff’s reputation as a tenant or as a consumer in connection with any and all transactions carried out or related to the aforementioned debt.

© For an order awarding actual damages in the following amount:

1. Against James H. Pugh, in the amount of $200.

(D) For an order awarding statutory damages in the following amounts:

1. Against Professional Debt Mediation, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000; for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in the amount of $4,000; for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

2. Against Mark Rosario, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

3. Against George Alexander, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

4. Against Lana Mason, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

5. Against Mari del Valle, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

6. Against JMG Realty, for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, in the amount of $1,000.

(E) For an order awarding punitive damages as follows:

1. Against Professional Debt Mediation, in the amount of $15,000.

2. Against Mark Rosario, in the amount of $2,500.

3. Against George Alexander, in the amount of $1,000.

4. Against Lana Mason, in the amount of $1,000.

5. Against Mari del Valle, in the amount of $500.

6. Against JMG Realty, in the amount of $2,000.

7. Against James H. Pugh, in the amount of $2,500.

And for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Please take notice that the Plaintiff demands trial by jury in this action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.