Emily Connor Kennedy (VSB #83889) 

Mark C. Leffler (VSB #40712) 

Boleman Law Firm, P.C. 

2104 W. Laburnum Ave., Suite 201 

Richmond, VA 23227 

Telephone (804) 358-9900 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Dale W. Pittman (VSB #15673) 

THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C. 

The Eliza Spotswood House 

112-A West Tabb Street 

Petersburg, VA 23803 

Telephone (804) 861-6000 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Thomas D. Domonoske (VSB # 35434) 

Consumer Litigation Associates. P.C. 

763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A 

Newport News, VA 23601 

Telephone (540) 442-7706 

Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

In re: Ernestine Robinson 

 Debtor 

Case No. 16-30817-KLP

Chapter 13

 

 

ERNESTINE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of a 

class of similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Adv. Pro. No. 17-03023-KLP 

 

PORANIA LLC, and 

BILTMORE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ERNESTINE ROBINSON, (“Plaintiff”), by counsel, and for 

her Complaint against the Defendants, she alleges as follows: 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. This is an action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory 

damages, costs and attorneys’ fees brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. Plaintiff brings this 

action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to recover remedies by reason of 

the Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. The 

violating actions addressed in this complaint stem from attempts to collect a debt that Defendants 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 20
 2

are not entitled to enforce in bankruptcy by filing improper proofs of claim in Plaintiff’s Chapter 

13 bankruptcy case. 

II. JURISDICTION

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 157(b), and 1334, and 

11 U.S.C. §§ 105 and 502, and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001, 3007, and 7023 in 

that this action arises in and relates to the bankruptcy case of Ms. Ernestine Robinson, a Chapter 

13 case which was filed in this court on February 24, 2016. 

3. This proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

and (O). The claims in this case arise under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d). To the extent that the Court finds that any of Plaintiff’s claims in this complaint are 

non-core claims, Plaintiff consents to entry of final judgment on all claims presented in this 

matter by the Bankruptcy Court. 

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1409. A substantial 

portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, Plaintiff and other 

similarly-situated debtors filed bankruptcy in this District, payments were demanded in this 

District, and Defendants transact business in this District. 

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Ernestine Robinson (“Ms. Robinson”) is a natural person, and an adult 

resident of the Richmond Division. She is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3). 

6. Defendant Porania LLC (“Porania”) is a Delaware limited liability company that 

is not registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 20
 3

7. According to a document attached to the proof of claim it filed in Plaintiff’s 

Chapter 13, Defendant Porania is a “debt collector”.1 

8. The principal purpose of Porania’s business is collecting debts, including by filing 

claims in bankruptcy cases. Porania is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

9. Defendant Biltmore Asset Management, LLC (“Biltmore”) is an Ohio limited 

liability company that is not registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. 

10. Biltmore’s website states that “Biltmore Asset Management acts as a debt 

collector.” Biltmore Asset Management, http://www.biltmoreasset.com (last visited Dec. 17, 

2016). 

11. Biltmore regularly collects or attempts to collect debts that are owed or due or 

asserted to be owed or due another. Biltmore is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(6). 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

12. On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed for relief under Chapter 13 of Title 11 U.S. 

Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 16-30817-KLP. 

13. On July 12, 2016, Defendants filed or caused to be filed a Proof of Claim against 

Ms. Robinson in her bankruptcy case, attempting to collect $800.00. The Proof of Claim is 

attached to this complaint as “Exhibit 1”. 

14. In Box 1 of the Proof of Claim, Defendants describe the current creditor as 

“Porania LLC”. 

15. In Box 7 of the Proof of Claim, in response to the question “Does this amount 

include interest or other charges?”, Defendants indicated “No”. 

 

1 The document attached to Porania’s proof of claim states, “Please be advised that Porania LLC has purchased the 

below referenced account. This communication is from a debt collector. Any information obtained will be used for 

that purpose.”

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 20
 4

16. In Box 8 of the Proof of Claim, in response to the question “What is the basis of 

the claim?”, Defendants indicated “Payday Loan”. 

17. In Part 3 of the Proof of Claim, Defendant Biltmore checked the box indicating 

that it is “the creditor’s attorney or authorized agent”. 

18. Part 3 of the Proof of Claim is signed by the President of Biltmore Asset 

Management, Amy Danner (“President Danner”). 

19. Above President Danner’s signature, the proof of claim states, “I have examined 

the information in this Proof of Claim and have a reasonable belief that the information is true 

and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.” 

20. Defendants affixed three (3) attachments to the proof of claim and designated 

them “Part Two”, “Part Three”, and “Part Four”: 

a. “Part Two” appears to be a true copy of the proof of claim form; 

b. “Part Three” is a 1-page document entitled “Statement Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

3001(c)(1) of the Circumstances of the Loss or Destruction of the Writing Upon 

Which the Claim is Based” (the “Rule 3001(c)(1) Statement”); and 

c. “Part Four” is a 1-page document that is self-identified as an “account summary” 

(the “Account Summary”). 

21. The Account Summary sets forth, among other things, the following: 

a. that the original creditor was Allied Cash Advance; 

b. that the account was opened on February 15, 2013; 

c. That the “Original Account No.” ended in 2830; 

d. that the account was charged off on June 30, 2013; 

e. that the last payment amount was $0.00; 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 20
 5

f. that the principal balance is $800.00; 

g. that the interest amount is $0.00; and 

h. that the interest rate is zero percent (0%). 

22. The alleged debt described in the Proof of Claim is a “debt” as defined in 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

23. Plaintiff did not list a debt to Defendants in her bankruptcy Schedules. 

24. Plaintiff denies owing this debt to Defendants and has requested strict proof 

thereof. Defendants failed to attach any document showing that Defendants are entitled to 

enforce the debt, and Defendants have failed to produce any documents showing that they are 

legally entitled to enforce this debt. Plaintiff has objected to the proof of claim (see Case No. 16-

30817-KLP, Docket No. 37). 

25. Defendants’ Statement under Rule 3001(c)(1) states that the debt was purchased 

from a seller who has a document retention policy of not keeping copies, even electronic copies, 

of the underlying agreements, applications, or other writings on which the claim is based. 

26. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known when they purchased the debt 

and when they filed the Proof of Claim that they were not entitled to enforce this debt in a United 

States Bankruptcy Court. 

27. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known when they filed the Proof of 

Claim that it contained false statements of fact. 

28. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known when they filed the Proof of 

Claim that they did not possess sufficient data to file a Proof of Claim in compliance with the 

requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 20
 6

V. 

COUNT I 

CLASS CLAIM AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA – 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. 

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all factual allegations in the complaint. 

30. Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following persons (the “FDCPA Class” or “FDCPA 

Class Members”): 

All debtors in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia who did not list a 

debt to Porania in their bankruptcy Schedules, and in whose bankruptcy cases Biltmore filed 

Proofs of Claim alleging that Porania purchased the claim from third parties, where the Proofs of 

Claim: (a) do not include documents from the original alleged creditor, (b) state that $0.00 in 

interest, fees, or other charges are included in the claim amount, and (c) state that the person 

signing the Proof of Claim has a reasonable belief that the information in the Proof of Claim is 

true and correct. 

31. Members of the above-defined FDCPA Class can be easily identified through 

Defendants’ records, the records of this Court, and the records of this Court’s Chapter 13 

trustees. 

A. Numerosity

32. The proposed FDCPA Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all 

Members is impracticable. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 20
 7

33. The subject involves hundreds—if not thousands—of FDCPA Class Members. 

While the identities of FDCPA Class Members are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, their 

identifying information is readily ascertainable through appropriate investigation and discovery. 

The disposition of the claims of the FDCPA Class Members in a single action will provide 

substantial benefits to all class members and to the Court. The FDCPA Class Members may be 

notified through the Bankruptcy Notification Center. 

B. Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact 

34. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the FDCPA Class 

and predominate over any questions affecting only individual FDCPA Class Members. These 

common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) Whether the proofs of claim are false; 

(b) Whether the proofs of claim violate Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001; 

(c) Whether the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 

(d) Whether the Defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable practices in 

connection with the proofs of claim; 

(e) Whether, as a result of the Defendants’ illegal activities, Plaintiff and FDCPA Class 

Members have suffered damages and, if so, the appropriate valuation of those damages; and, 

(f) Whether, as a result of Defendants’ activities, Plaintiff and FDCPA Class Members 

are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, or other relief; and, if so, the nature of that relief. 

C. Typicality 

35. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the FDCPA Class. 

Plaintiff and FDCPA Class Members share the facts and legal claims or questions in this 

complaint, and Plaintiff and all FDCPA Class Members have been similarly affected by 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 20
 8

Defendants’ common course of conduct: filing improper claims with false representations in this 

District. 

D. Adequacy 

36. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

FDCPA Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in handling bankruptcy 

matters as well as complex class action litigation, including complex questions that arise in this 

type of financial and consumer protection litigation. 

37. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this 

action. Plaintiff and her counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members 

of the FDCPA Class. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests which might cause 

them not to vigorously pursue this action. 

E. Superiority 

38. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the present controversy for at least the following reasons: 

(a) The claims presented in this case predominate over any questions of law or fact 

affecting individual FDCPA Class Members; 

(b) Individual joinder of all FDCPA Class Members is impracticable; 

(c) Absent a Class, Plaintiff and FDCPA Class Members will continue to suffer harm as a 

result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct; 

(d) Given the amount of individual FDCPA Class Members’ claims, few, if any, FDCPA 

Class Members have the resources to, or would choose to, seek legal redress for the wrongs 

Defendants committed against them, and absent FDCPA Class Members have no substantial 

interest in individually controlling the prosecution of individual actions; 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 20
 9

(e) Even if individual FDCPA Class Members had the resources to pursue individual 

litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would 

proceed; 

(f) Adjudications of FDCPA Class Members’ claims against Defendants on an individual 

basis would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other FDCPA Class Members 

who are not parties to the adjudication, and may substantially impair or impede the ability of 

other FDCPA Class Members to protect their interests; and, 

(g) This action presents no difficulty that would impede its management by the Court as a 

class action, which is the best available means by which Plaintiff and FDCPA Class Members 

can seek redress for the harm caused by Defendants. 

F. Injunctive Relief 

39. Defendants knowingly filed improper Proofs of Claim which failed to comply 

with Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and which contained false statements, resulting in uniform damage 

to Plaintiff and FDCPA Class Members. Additionally, Defendants have sought to collect debts 

in bankruptcy that they are not entitled to collect. As a result, Defendants have acted or refused 

to act on grounds generally applicable to each FDCPA Class Member, which makes final 

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the FDCPA Class 

as a whole. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, there is an actual justiciable controversy which is not 

speculative, and a declaratory judgment is the appropriate mechanism for resolving the dispute. 

40. Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive and corresponding declaratory and equitable 

relief for the entire FDCPA Class, the prosecution of separate actions by individual FDCPA 

Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual FDCPA Class Members, and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 20
 10

Defendants. Further, bringing individual claims would overburden the courts and would be an 

inefficient method of resolving the dispute at the center of this litigation. 

G. The FDCPA Violations 

41. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e by using false, deceptive, and/or 

misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a debt. Specifically, 

through Biltmore’s President, Defendants filed a Proof of Claim falsely asserting that a 

reasonable belief exists that the information in the Proof of Claim is true and correct. Examples 

of why Defendants could not assert a reasonable belief include, but are not limited to, the 

patently false information regarding zero interest and zero fees. 

42. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by using unfair and unconscionable means 

to collect a debt, including making false representations and filing a Proof of Claim without 

sufficient information to comply with Rule 3001. 

43. Regarding Exhibit 1, given that the alleged underlying claim is a “Payday Loan” 

that was in default, and that no supporting documents from the original creditor are attached, and 

no supporting documents from the original creditor were even available to Defendants, it is not 

reasonable to believe that the amount owed on a defaulted payday loan would have no interest or 

fees. 

44. Furthermore, Defendants knew they possessed no documentation sufficient to 

comply with Rule 3001’s requirements regarding documentation on which the claim is based. 

45. As shown by the examples in Exhibits 2 through 8, the Proofs of Claim that 

Defendants filed in the FDCPA Class Member’s bankruptcy cases will similarly show this 

common violation. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 20
 11

46. Exhibit 2 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for a consumer’s account that 

went into default in 2010, in which the filer certifies that there is no interest and that there are no 

fees, and for which no supporting documents from the original creditor were available to either 

Defendant. 

47. As a further example, Exhibit 3 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for a 

consumer’s account that went into default in 2011, in which the filer certifies that there is no 

interest and that there are no fees, and for which no supporting documents from the original 

creditor were available to either Defendant. 

48. As a further example, Exhibit 4 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for 

consumer’s account with Western Sky that went into default in 2013, in which the filer certifies 

that there is no interest and that there are no fees, and for which no supporting documents from 

the original creditor were available to either Defendant. 

49. As a further example, Exhibit 5 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for a 

consumer’s account that went into default in 2009, in which the filer certifies that there is no 

interest and that there are no fees, and for which no supporting documents from the original 

creditor were available to either Defendant. 

50. As a further example, Exhibit 6 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for a 

consumer’s cell phone account that went into default in 2012, in which the filer certifies that 

there is no interest and that there are no fees, and for which no supporting documents from the 

original creditor are attached. Defendants filed this Proof of Claim even though, as shown in 

Exhibit 7, Porania filed the identical alleged claim under a separate claim number and the 

description “money loaned”. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 20
 12

51. As a further example, Exhibit 8 is a Proof of Claim that asserts a claim for a 

consumer’s account that went into default in 2005, in which the filer certifies that there is no 

interest and that there are no fees, and for which no supporting documents from the original 

creditor were available to either Defendant. 

52. As a result of their violations of the FDCPA, Porania and Biltmore are liable to 

Plaintiff and the putative FDCPA Class Members for actual and statutory damages, plus costs 

and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II 

CLASS CLAIM AGAINST ONLY PORANIA 

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 3001 

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all factual allegations in the complaint. 

54. Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following persons (“the Rule 3001 Class” or “Rule 

3001 Class Members”): 

All debtors in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia who did not list a 

debt to Porania in their bankruptcy Schedules and in whose bankruptcy cases a Proof of Claim 

was filed alleging that Porania had purchased a claim from third parties, where the Proofs of 

Claim: (a) do not include documents from the original alleged creditor, (b) state that $0.00 in 

interest, fees, or other charges are included in the claim amount, and (c) state that the person 

signing the Proof of Claim has a reasonable belief that the information in the Proof of Claim is 

true and correct. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 20
 13

55. As set forth below, using the factors for (b)(3) class actions as a guide for this 

(b)(2)-only class, injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate for the Rule 3001 

Class as a whole. 

56. For this (b)(2) class, the members can be easily identified through Porania’s 

records, the records of this Court, and the records of this Court’s Chapter 13 trustees. 

A. Numerosity

57. The proposed Rule 3001 Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all 

Members is impracticable. 

58. The subject involves hundreds—if not thousands—of Rule 3001 Class Members. 

While the identities of Rule 3001 Class Members are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, their 

identifying information is readily ascertainable through appropriate investigation and discovery. 

The disposition of the claims of the Rule 3001 Class Members in a single action will provide 

substantial benefit to all class members and to the Court. The Rule 3001 Class Members and the 

Chapter 13 Trustees in each affected case may be notified through the Bankruptcy Notification 

Center. 

B. Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact 

59. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Rule 3001 Class 

and predominate over any questions affecting only individual Rule 3001 Class Members. These 

common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) Whether the proofs of claim contain false certifications that the signor had a 

reasonable belief that the information contained in each proof of claim was true and correct; 

(b) Whether the proofs of claim violate Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001; 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 20
 14

(c) Whether Porania was entitled to file a Proof of Claim when it did not possess 

sufficient documentation to comply with Rule 3001; and 

(d) Whether, as a result of Porania’s activities, Plaintiff and Rule 3001 Class 

Members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, or other relief; and, if so, the nature of 

such relief. 

C. Typicality 

60. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Members of the Rule 3001 Class. 

Plaintiff and Rule 3001 Class Members share the facts and legal claims or questions in this 

complaint. Plaintiff and all Rule 3001 Class Members have been similarly affected by Porania’s 

common course of conduct: filing Proofs of Claim in this District that violate Rule 3001. 

D. Adequacy 

61. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Rule 

3001 Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in handling bankruptcy 

matters as well as complex class action litigation, including complex questions that arise in this 

type of financial and consumer protection litigation. 

62. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action. 

Plaintiff and her counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the 

Rule 3001 Class. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interests which might cause them not 

to vigorously pursue this action. 

E. Superiority 

63. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the present controversy for at least the following reasons: 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 20
 15

(a) The claims presented in this case predominate over any questions of law or fact 

affecting individual Rule 3001 Class Members; 

(b) Individual joinder of all Rule 3001 Class Members is impracticable; 

(c) Absent a Class, Plaintiff and Rule 3001 Class Members will continue to suffer 

harm as a result of Porania’s unlawful conduct; 

(d) Few, if any, Rule 3001 Class Members have the resources to, or would choose to, 

seek legal redress for the wrongs that Porania committed against them, and absent Rule 3001 

Class Members have no substantial interest in individually controlling the prosecution of 

individual actions; 

(e) Even if individual Rule 3001 Class Members had the resources to pursue 

individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual 

litigation would proceed; 

(f) Adjudications of individual Rule 3001 Class Members’ claims against Porania 

would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Rule 3001 Class Members 

who are not parties to the adjudication, and may substantially impair or impede the ability of 

other Rule 3001 Class Members to protect their interests; and, 

(g) This action presents no difficulty that would impede its management by the Court 

as a class action, which is the best available means by which Plaintiff and Rule 3001 Class 

Members can seek redress for the harm caused by Porania. 

F. Injunctive Relief 

64. Porania knowingly filed improper Proofs of Claim that failed to comply with 

Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and which contained false statements, resulting in uniform damage to 

Plaintiff and Rule 3001 Class Members. As a result, Porania has acted or refused to act on 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 20
 16

grounds generally applicable to each Rule 3001 Class Member, which makes final injunctive 

relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the Rule 3001 Class as a 

whole. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, there is an actual justiciable controversy which is not 

speculative, and a declaratory judgment is the appropriate mechanism for resolving the dispute. 

65. Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive and corresponding declaratory and equitable 

relief for the entire Rule 3001 Class, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Rule 3001 

Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual Rule 3001 Class Members, and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Porania. Further, bringing individual claims would overburden the courts and would be an 

inefficient method of resolving the dispute at the center of this litigation. 

G. The Rule 3001 violation 

66. Porania violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(1) by filing a 

Proof of Claim when it knew it did not have the documentation from the original creditor on 

which the claim was based. 

67. Porania violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(2) by failing to 

file with its Proof of Claim an itemized statement of the interest, fees, expenses, or charges that 

were actually incurred before the bankruptcy petition was filed and which were included in the 

claim amount. 

68. Porania violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(1) by filing a 

Proof of Claim containing a false certification that the signor had a reasonable belief that the 

information contained in the Proof of Claim was true and correct, when it had no basis for that 

belief. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 20
 17

69. Exhibits 1 through 8 are examples of Porania’s common practice of having Proofs 

of Claim filed on its behalf where it asserted no interest and fees are included in a defaulted 

consumer account, and where no documentation about the original account is available. 

70. As a further example of how Porania profits from systematically filing improper 

claim, even duplicative claims like Exhibit 7 and 8, Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 are three separate 

Proofs of Claim filed by Porania that disclose an identical claim amount for an account allegedly 

opened on the same day in 2010 and then charged off by three different creditors on the exact 

same day over five years later. 

71. For Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, Porania’s claim that each account was opened by a 

different creditor and had a different account number is not reasonable given that no 

documentation is provided. Instead, these Exhibits show that Porania is simply taking 

information that it has purchased electronically and using that information to file Proofs of Claim 

that it has no right to file. 

72. As a result of the violations of the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 

3001(c)(1), and as the alleged “holder of the claim”, Porania is subject to an appropriate remedy 

as determined by this Court, for Plaintiff and the putative Rule 3001 Class Members, and also for 

costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 20
 18

VII. DEMAND FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiff therefore requests on behalf of herself and the proposed two classes, the 

following relief: 

(i) An order certifying the FDCPA Class Members' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(b)(3) and/or 23(b)(2), or certifying such issues as may be deemed 

appropriately treated on a class basis; 

(ii) An order certifying the Rule 3001 Class Members' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(b)(2), or certifying such issues as may be deemed appropriately treated on a 

class basis; 

(iii) An order appointing named Plaintiff as representative of both classes and 

appointing undersigned counsel as Class counsel for each class; 

(iv) An award of damages under the FDCPA, including actual and statutory damages 

jointly and severally, as against Porania LLC, and Biltmore Asset Management, 

LLC, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; 

(v) An award of the appropriate remedy as determined by this Court for Porania 

LLC’s violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(1), including 

but not limited to striking Porania’s claims filed in violation of this rule; 

(vi) An award of attorneys’ fees; 

(vii) An award of litigation costs; 

(viii) A Declaration that Defendants violated the law and an injunction against them 

filing any further Proofs of Claim that violate Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 3001(c)(1); and 

(ix) Other declaratory or injunctive relief as the Court deems fair and equitable. 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 18 of 20
 19

Respectfully submitted, 

 ERNESTINE ROBINSON 

 By: /s/ Mark C. Leffler 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Emily Connor Kennedy (VSB #83889) 

 Mark C. Leffler (VSB #40712) 

 Boleman Law Firm, P.C. 

 2104 W. Laburnum Ave., Suite 201 

 Richmond, VA 23227 

 Telephone (804) 358-9900 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Dale W. Pittman (VSB #15673) 

 THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C. 

 The Eliza Spotswood House 

 112-A West Tabb Street 

 Petersburg, VA 23803 

 Telephone (804) 861-6000 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 

Thomas D. Domonoske (VSB #35434) 

 Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. 

 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A 

 Newport News, VA 23601 

 Telephone (540) 442-7706 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 19 of 20
 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that on March 31, 2017, a copy of the foregoing was mailed via first 

class mail to the following: 

Porania, LLC 

c/o Jonathan Koop, Incorporator 

6991 E. Camelback Rd., D300 

Scottsdale, AZ 85251 

Porania, LLC 

c/o The Corporation Trust Company 

Corporation Trust Center 

1209 Orange St. 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

 I further certify that on March 31, 2017, I served the following party with a copy of the 

foregoing by CM/ECF: 

 

Biltmore Asset Management, LLC 

c/o Rachael L. Loughlin, Esquire 

O’Hagan Meyer PLLC 

411 East Franklin Street, Suite 500 

Richmond, VA 23219 

 By: /s/ Mark C. Leffler 

 Mark C. Leffler 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 17-03023-KLP Doc 20 Filed 03/31/17 Entered 03/31/17 16:18:57 Desc Main

 Document Page 20 of 20