You're viewing Docket Item 1 from the case Jones v. LVNV Funding, LLC. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO



Civil Action No.:

GLORIA JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.



COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND



1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

This action arises out of the Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter the “FDCPA”).

VENUE

Venue is proper in this Judicial District.

The acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in this Judicial District.

The Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District.

The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District.

Plaintiff Gloria Jones is a natural person.

PARTIES

The Plaintiff resides in the City of Denver, County of Denver, State of Colorado.

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12

9.

The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

10.

The Plaintiff is a “any person” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1692d preface.

11. Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company operating

from an address at 625 Pilot Road, Suite 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89119.

12.

The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is The Corporation

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Company, 1675 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 80202.

The Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

The Defendant is licensed as a collection agency by the state of Colorado.

The principal purpose of the Defendant is the collection of debts using the mails

and telephone.

The Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another that arose out of transactions in

which the money, property or services which are the subject of the transactions are

primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. Sometime before 2012 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation that

was primarily for personal, family or household purposes namely an amount due

and owing on personal account owed to HSBC (hereinafter the “Account”).

The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

The Account went into default with HSBC.


2

19.

20.



Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12

21. After the Account went into default with it was placed or otherwise transferred to

the Defendant for collection.

22.

The Defendant alleges that it purchased the Account after it went into default with

23.

24.

HSBC.

The Plaintiff disputes the Account.

The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication on the

Account.

25.

The Defendant’s collector(s) were employee(s) and/or agent(s) of the Defendant

at all times mentioned herein.

26.

The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its employee(s)

and/or agent(s) including Financial Recovery Services, Inc..

27.

In 2012 the Defendant placed the Account with Financial Recovery Services, Inc.

for collection from the Plaintiff.

28.

In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Plaintiff and the Defendant

via its agent(s), including Financial Recovery Services, Inc., had telephone

conversation(s) regarding the Account.

29.

The Defendant’s purpose for these telephone conversation(s) was to attempt to

collect the Account.

30.

The telephone conversation(s) each individually conveyed information regarding

the Account directly or indirectly to the Plaintiff.

31.

The telephone conversation(s) each individually constituted a “communication”

as defined by FDCPA § 1692a(2).




3

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12

32.

The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and /

or agent(s) of the Defendant, including Financial Recovery Services, Inc., had

telephone conversation(s) with the Plaintiff was to attempt to collect the Account.

33.

In November 2012 the Plaintiff had a telephone conversation regarding the

Account with the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc..

34. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Plaintiff

disputed the Account.

35. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Plaintiff

stated: I never borrowed that much.

36. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Plaintiff

stated: I’m disputing this bill with your company.

37. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Defendant via

its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., stated: You are?

38. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Plaintiff

stated: Yes.

39. During the telephone conversation in November 2012 between the Plaintiff and

the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., the Defendant via




4

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12

its agent, Financial Recovery Services, Inc., stated: Ok. I will go ahead and mark

that.

40.

The Plaintiff disputed the Account with the Defendant via its agent, Financial

Recovery Services, Inc., in November 2012.

41. Prior to November 2012 the Defendant’s agent, Financial Recovery Services,

Inc. notified the Defendant that the Account was disputed.

42.

The Defendant was aware that the Account was disputed in November 2012.

43. Prior to December 2012 the Defendant was aware that the Account was

disputed.

44. Prior to December 2012 the Defendant was informed that the Account was

disputed.

45. Prior to December 2012 the Defendant was aware that in November 2012 the

Plaintiff disputed the Account.

46. Prior to December 2012 the Defendant was aware that in November 2012 the

Plaintiff stated during a telephone call with the Defendant via its agent, Financial

Recovery Services, Inc., regarding the Account: “I’m disputing this bill with your

company” and “I never borrowed that much”.

47.

In December 2012 the Defendant communicated information regarding the

Account to the credit reporting agencies - Transunion, Experian and/or Equifax

without communicating that the Account was disputed.

48.

In December 2012 the Defendant communicated information regarding the

Account to Transunion, a credit reporting agency.




5

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12

49.

In December 2012 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the balance

on the Account was: $4,057.

50. On or before December 2012 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that

the Original Creditor on the Account was: HSBC BANK NEV FURN ROW TIER 2

(Financial).

51.

In December 2012 the Defendant failed to communicate to Transunion that the

Account was disputed.

52.

In December 2012 the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion that the

Account was disputed.

53.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in December

2012 on the Account conveyed information regarding the Account directly or

indirectly to Transunion.

54.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in December

2012 on the Account constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA §

1692a(2).

55.

The only reason that the Defendant communicated the information regarding the

Account in December 2012 to Transunion was to attempt to collect the Account.

56.

In January 2013 the Defendant communicated information regarding the Account

to the credit reporting agencies - Transunion, Experian and/or Equifax without

communicating that the Account was disputed.

57.

In January 2013 the Defendant communicated information regarding the Account

to Transunion, a credit reporting agency.




6

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 12

58.

In January 2013 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the balance on

the Account was: $4,115.

59. On or before January 2013 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the

Original Creditor on the Account was: HSBC BANK NEV FURN ROW TIER 2

(Financial).

60.

In January 2013 the Defendant failed to communicate to Transunion that the

Account was disputed.

61.

In January 2013 the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion that the

Account was disputed.

62.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in January 2013

on the Account conveyed information regarding the Account directly or indirectly

to Transunion.

63.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in January 2013

on the Account constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA § 1692a(2).

64.

The only reason that the Defendant communicated the information regarding the

Account in January 2013 to Transunion was to attempt to collect the Account.

65. After November 2012 the Defendant communicated information regarding the

Account to the credit reporting agencies - Transunion, Experian and/or Equifax

without communicating that the Account was disputed.

66. After November 2012 the Defendant communicated information regarding the

Account to Transunion, a credit reporting agency.




7

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12

67. After November 2012 when the Defendant communicated information regarding

the Account to Transunion the Defendant failed to communicate to Transunion

that the Account was disputed.

68. After November 2012 when the Defendant communicated information regarding

the Account to Transunion the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion

that the Account was disputed.

69.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant after November

2012 on the Account conveyed information regarding the Account directly or

indirectly to Transunion.

70.

The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant after November

2012 on the Account constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA §

1692a(2).

71.

The only reason that the Defendant communicated the information regarding the

Account after November 2012 to Transunion was to attempt to collect the

Account.

72. Upon information and belief the Defendant kept written documentation and / or

computer record(s) that document telephone conversation(s) with the Plaintiff

regarding the Account in the year prior to the filing of the instant action.

73. Upon information and belief the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., made audio recording(s) of some of its telephone conversation(s)

with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant action.




8

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12

74. Upon information and belief the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., made audio recording(s) of all of its telephone conversation(s)

with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant action.

75. Upon information and belief the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., has a copy or copies of the audio recording(s) of some of its

telephone conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the

instant action.

76. Upon information and belief the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., has a copy or copies of the audio recording(s) of all of its

telephone conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the

instant action.

77. Upon information and belief in the time between when it received this Complaint

and Jury Demand and when a Answer to this Complaint and Jury Demand was

filed on its behalf with the Court the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., made an inquiry and/or investigation as to whether it had any

audio recording(s) of any telephone conversation(s) between the Defendant and

the Plaintiff.

78. Upon information and belief the Defendant via its agent, Financial Recovery

Services, Inc., sent copy(s) of any audio recording(s) that it had of telephone

conversation(s) between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to the attorney and/or

the law firm who employs the attorney who is filing the Answer to this Complaint

and Jury Demand on behalf of the Defendant.




9

Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12

79. Upon information and belief the Defendant’s and its agent’s, Financial Recovery







Services, Inc., copies of the audio recording(s) of its telephone conversation(s)

with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant action substantiate the

Plaintiff’s allegations in this action.

80.

The Defendant and its representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s)

statement(s) and action(s) constitute false or misleading representation(s) or

mean(s) and violate FDCPA 1692e preface, e(2)(A), e(8) and e(10).

81.

The Defendant and its representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s)

statement(s) and action(s) constitute unfair or unconscionable means to collect

or attempt to collect a debt and violate FDCPA 1692f preface.

82.

“The Act is a strict liability statute; violations of the Act do not need to be

intentional to be actionable.” Smith v. National Credit Systems, Inc., 807

F.Supp.2d 836, 840 (D.Az. 2011).

83.

“Because the FDCPA “is a “strict liability statute,” Plaintiff need only demonstrate

“one violation of its provisions” to be entitled to a favorable judgment.” Doshay v.

Global Credit and Collection Corporation, 796 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1304 (D.Colo.

2011).

84.

The FDCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed liberally in favor of the

consumer. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002).

85. As a consequence of the Defendant’s collection activities and

communication(s), the Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to FDCPA

1692k(a).



10


Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12

86.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were employee(s) of

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR



the Defendant at all times mentioned herein.

87.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were agent(s) of the

Defendant at all times mentioned herein.

88.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were acting within the

course of their employment at all times mentioned herein.

89.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were acting within the

scope of their employment at all times mentioned herein.

90.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were under the direct

supervision of the Defendant at all times mentioned herein.

91.

The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were under the direct

control of the Defendant at all times mentioned herein.

92.

The actions of the representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant are

imputed to their employer, the Defendant.

93. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions, the Plaintiff seeks

damages pursuant to FDCPA 1692k(a).

COUNT I, FDCPA VIOLATION

94. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in full.

95. The act(s) and omission(s) of the Defendant and its representative(s),

employee(s) and / or agent(s) violated the FDCPA, § 1692e preface, e(2)(A),

e(8), e(10) and § 1692f preface.



11


Case 1:13-cv-01040-WYD-CBS Document 1 Filed 04/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 12

96. Pursuant to FDCPA section 1692k the Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable

attorney's fees and costs.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury. U.S. Const. amend. 7.,

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 38.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the following:

1.

Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

2.

3.

Damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a).

Reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).

4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

__________

_s/ David M. Larson
David M. Larson, Esq.
88 Inverness Circle East, Suite I-101
Englewood, CO 80112
(303) 799-6895
Attorney for the Plaintiff



12