Jump to content

My lawsuit please critique


Recommended Posts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

consumer from H#ll : Civil Action No. 06-

v. :

Collection Bozos. :

Complaint

Jurisdiction

1. This is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, hereinafter “FDCPA,” 15 U.S.C 1692a, et seq.

2. Jurisdiction in this case is founded upon 15 U.S.C. 1692k which grants the United States District Courts jurisdiction to hear this action without regard to the amount in controversy.

Parties

3. The plaintiff is John Hefeneider, adult, resides at 1001 E. 16th St. # 1 Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

4. Defendant is Accounts Management, Inc., a professional debt collection agency doing business at 5132 S. Cliff Ave. Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57108 (“hereinafter referred to as “AMI defendants”) as primarily a consumer debt collection firm.

5. All defendant(s) hereinabove are debt collectors as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)

6. Although the plaintiff may not be liable to defendants or any company or corporation for which the defendant collect, the plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3).

Factual Allegations

7. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

8. The AMI defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692i by bringing legal action against the plaintiff in a judicial district that the plaintiff did not reside in at the commencement of the action.

9. The AMI defendants violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g by failing to advise plaintiff of his right to debt validation in writing.

First Claim for Relief

10. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.

11. In filing legal action against the plaintiff outside of the judicial district that the plaintiff resides in violating 15 USC 1692i.

12. As a result of defendants’ action, plaintiff has lost and continues to experience sleep loss, suffered from severe stress, dangerously high blood sugar levels from diabetes, loss in sales commissions, and loss of work, felt physically sickened and has incurred medical costs.

13. As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA , the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment that defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA, and Plaintiff’s actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment in a sum less than $150,000 be entered against the Defendant for the following:

A. Declaratory judgment that the Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA.

B. Actual damages;

C. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k.

D. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k.

E. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1692i also allows the action to be filed in the "judicial district" where the contract was signed. It can be either one. Have you already proven that this was done improperly as well?

The CA is going to produce an initial communication letter whether they sent it or not. How are you going to rebut it?

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.