Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 11

1 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180) 2 11811 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 3031 Phoenix, AZ 85028 3 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 4 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 5 6 Of Counsel to Lemberg & Associates LLC 7 A Connecticut Law Firm 8 1100 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 9 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 10 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Concepcion Olivares, 20 21 22 vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Attorneys for Plaintiff, 12 Concepcion Olivares

23 National Attorney Collection Services, Inc.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants.

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 2 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 1. 6 7

For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Concepcion Olivares, by undersigned counsel, states as follows: JURISDICTION This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the invasions of

8 Plaintiff’s personal privacy by the Defendants and its agents in their illegal efforts to 9 collect a consumer debt. 10 2. Original and supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 11 12 1367. 13 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that 14 Defendants transact business here and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to 15 16 this action occurred here. 17 18 19 21 22 23 5. 25 26 28 2 The Defendant, National Attorney Collection Services, Inc. (hereafter 24 “NACS”), is a California company with an address of 3940 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Unit 607, Studio City, California 91604, operating as a collection agency, and is a 4. The Plaintiff, Concepcion Olivares (hereafter “Plaintiff”), is an adult individual 20 residing in Tolleson, Arizona, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). PARTIES

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

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 11

1 6. Does 1-10 (the “Collectors”) are individual collectors employed by NACS and 2 whose identities are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. One or more of the Collectors 3 4 may be joined as parties once their identities are disclosed through discovery. 5 7. 6 7 8 NACS at all times acted by and through one or more of the Collectors. ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS A. The Debt

9 8. The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation in the approximate 10 amount of $2,080.00 (the “Debt”) to an original creditor (the “Creditor”). 11 12 9. The Debt arose from services provided by the Creditor which were primarily 13 for family, personal or household purposes and which meets the definition of a “debt” 14 under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 15 16 10. 17 18 19 11. The Defendants attempted to collect the alleged Debt and, as such, engaged in 20 “communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). 21 22 23 24 25 phone in an attempt to collect the Debt. 26 27 28 3 12. B. NACS Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics Within the last year, Defendants placed numerous calls to Plaintiff’s cellular The alleged Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to NACS for

collection, or NACS was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt.

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 4 of 11

1 13. During a phone conversation on September 8, 2012, NACS informed Plaintiff 2 that she needed to satisfy the Debt immediately or they would take immediate legal 3 4 action against her. 5 14. 6 15. 7 9 10 11 16. 13 14 NACS told Plaintiff that she had committed fraud and that they were sending a 12 sheriff over to pick up Plaintiff. 17. NACS told Plaintiff that she would spend time in jail. Furthermore, during this conversation, NACS failed to clearly identify the name To date, no such legal action has been taken. During this September 8, 2012 conversation, NACS gave Plaintiff the

8 impression that they were the police, telling Plaintiff that they were reading her rights and that she had the “right to remain silent.”

15 18.

16 of their company and failed to state that the reason for their calls was debt collection. 17 19. Plaintiff asked that NACS stop calling her and requested that NACS correspond 18 19 with her only through writing regarding the Debt. 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 4 day, September 8, 2012, and again informed Plaintiff they were reading her rights, 23 thereby relaying the impression to Plaintiff that NACS was the police. 21. NACS then called Plaintiff’s mother-in-law. 20. NACS, however, proceeded to call Plaintiff back three more times the same

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 5 of 11

1 22. During the conversation with Plaintiff’s mother-in-law, NACS disclosed 2 information regarding the nature of the Debt and said that Plaintiff had committed 3 4 fraud. 5 23. NACS also accused Plaintiff’s mother-in-law of committing fraud and stated 6 that she was a co-signer on the Debt when she was not. 7 8 24. 9 10 11 jail. 12 25. 13 14 NACS then placed a call to Plaintiff’s sister and accused her of committing NACS also threatened Plaintiff’s mother-in-law, stating that she needed to

satisfy the Debt immediately or else NACS would send a sheriff over to take her to

fraud with Plaintiff. NACS told Plaintiff’s sister that she owed $2,000.00 towards the Debt and that

15 26.

16 they were also sending a sheriff to take her to jail. 17 27. During this conversation, NACS threatened to send immigration after Plaintiff 18 19 and Plaintiff’s sister. 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 5 NACS with Plaintiff’s number and address, it was because she was “covering up” for 23 Plaintiff. 29. NACS then called Plaintiff’s brother at his place of employment. 28. NACS also accused Plaintiff’s sister of lying, stating that if she did not provide

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 6 of 11

1 30. NACS continued as they had in their previous conversations with Plaintiff’s 2 mother-in-law and sister, telling Plaintiff’s brother that if Plaintiff did not return their 3 4 calls within twenty-four hours, NACS would send the sheriff over. 5 31. Plaintiff called NACS on September 10, 2012, in reference to the threats of 6 arrest. During this call, an NACS representative informed Plaintiff that she would 7 8 review the recordings of the conversations. The NACS representative also said that if 9 10 11 action against Plaintiff. 12 32. 13 14 16 17 18 34. 19 20 C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a result of 33. Lastly, NACS failed to send Plaintiff written validation of the Debt. NACS’s calls were extremely harassing and caused Plaintiff a great deal of she found out that Plaintiff had been harassing her employees, NACS would take legal

15 stress.

the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a direct consequence of the Defendants’ acts, practices and conduct, the

21 35.

22 Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional 23 distress, fear, frustration, and embarrassment. 24 25 26 27 28 6

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 7 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 36. 7 8

COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this

6 Complaint as though fully stated herein. 37. The Defendants communicated with individuals other than the Plaintiff, the

9 Plaintiff’s attorney, or a credit bureau, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). 10 38. The Defendants engaged in behavior the natural consequence of which was to 11 harass, oppress, or abuse the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt, in 12 13 violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 14 15 16 18 19 consumer, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2). The Defendants caused a phone to ring repeatedly and engaged the Plaintiff in 17 40. 39. The Defendants used profane and abusive language when speaking with the

telephone conversations, with the intent to annoy and harass, in violation of 15 U.S.C.

20 § 1692d(5). 21 41. The Defendants placed calls to the Plaintiff without disclosing the identity of 22 the debt collection agency, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6). 23 24 42. The Defendants used false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in 25 connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 26 43. The Defendants falsely represented to the Plaintiff that it was affiliated with the 27 28 United States or a government entity, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(1). 7

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 8 of 11

1 44. The Defendants threatened to take legal action, without actually intending to do 2 so, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). 3 4 45. The Defendants falsely misrepresented that the Plaintiff had committed a crime, 5 in order to disgrace the Plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(7). 6 46. The Defendants employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt, in 7 8 violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). 9 10 11 attempt to collect a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). 12 48. 13 14 The Defendants used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt, in 47. The Defendants failed to inform the consumer that the communication was an

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The Defendants failed to send Plaintiff an initial letter within five days of its

15 49.

16 initial contact with Plaintiff as required by law, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). 17 50. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute numerous and 18 19 multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited provisions. 20 21 22 23 24 52. 25 26 COUNT II INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 51. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of the Defendants’ violations.

Complaint as though fully stated herein. The Restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) defines intrusion upon seclusion as,

27 53.

28 “One who intentionally intrudes…upon the solitude or seclusion of another, or his 8

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 9 of 11

1 private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if 2 the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” 3 4 54. Arizona further recognizes the Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of 5 privacy, thus Defendant violated Arizona state law. 6 55. The Defendant intentionally intruded upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy by 7 8 continually harassing the Plaintiff with repeated phone calls. 9 10 11 repeated with such frequency as to be considered, “hounding the plaintiff,” and, “a 12 substantial burden to her existence,” thus satisfying the Restatement of Torts, Second, 13 14 § 652(b) requirement for an invasion of privacy. The conduct of the Defendants in engaging in the illegal collection activities 56. The telephone calls made by Defendants to the Plaintiff were so persistent and

15 57.

16 resulted in multiple invasions of privacy in such a way as would be considered highly 17 offensive to a reasonable person. 18 19 58. 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 9 59. All acts of Defendants and its agents were committed with malice, intent, 23 wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, Defendants are subject to punitive damages. As a result of the intrusions and invasions, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual

damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendants.

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 10 of 11

1 2 3 4 60.

COUNT III INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this

5 Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 6 61. The acts, practices, and conduct engaged in by the Defendants vis-à-vis the 7 Plaintiff was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all 8 9 possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in 10 11 12 62. The foregoing conduct constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional 13 distress under the laws of the State of Arizona. 14 63. As a result of the Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress, the 15 16 Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 Defendants: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 §1692k(a)(2)(A) against the Defendants; PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the a civilized community.

A. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against the Defendants; B. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

Case 2:12-cv-02186-SPL Document 1 Filed 10/12/12 Page 11 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

C. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against the Defendants; D. Actual damages from the Defendants for all damages, including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent invasions of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial for the Plaintiff; E. Punitive damages; F. For Plaintiff’s statutory costs in relation to the Arizona claim(s) pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341; and G. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

21 DATED: October 12, 2012 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent Trinette G. Kent Attorney for Plaintiff Concepcion Olivares

11

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful