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: DORI DANYELLE WINGATE 

 Debtor 

Case No. 15-35033-KLP

Chapter 13

 

 

DORI DANYELLE WINGATE, individually and on behalf of a 

class of similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Adv. Pro. No. ____________ 

 

BLUECHIP FINANCIAL, 

d/b/a Spotloan. 

and 

AMERICAN INFOSOURCE LP 

 Defendants. 

 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DORI DANYELLE WINGATE, (“Plaintiff”, or “Ms. 

Wingate”), 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 for sanctions pursuant to 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 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 18
 2

Bankruptcy Procedure 3001. The violating actions addressed in this complaint stem from 

Defendants’ attempts to collect a usurious debt 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 Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. 

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 Dori Danyelle Wingate 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 BlueChip Financial (“Spotloan”) is an out-of-state company that is not 

registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. It does business as Spotloan, Inc. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 18
 3

7. Defendant American InfoSource LP (“InfoSource”) is an out-of-state limited 

partnership that is not registered with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. It filed a 

Proof of Claim in Ms. Wingate’s bankruptcy on behalf of Spotloan. 

8. InfoSource asserts that it is a leading servicer of consumer bankruptcy debt, and 

the largest filer of bankruptcy Proofs of Claim in the U.S. American InfoSource, Bankruptcy 

Solutions, www.americaninfosource.com/business-process-experts/bankruptcy/ (last visited June 

12, 2017). 

9. InfoSource regularly collects or attempts to collect debts that are owed or due or 

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

§1692(a)(6). 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. On September 30, 2015, 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. 15-35033-KLP. 

11. On October 5, 2015, Defendants filed or caused to be filed a Proof of Claim 

against Ms. Wingate in her bankruptcy case, attempting to collect $1,498.87. The Proof of 

Claim is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. 

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

U.S.C. § 1692(a)(5). 

13. In the Proof of Claim, Defendants describe the current creditor as “American 

InfoSource LP as agent for Spot Loan”. 

14. In Box 1 of the Proof of Claim, Defendants indicated that no interest or other 

charges were included in the claim. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 18
 4

15. Because the claim asserted that no interest or fees were included in the claim, no 

itemization of interest or fees was attached. 

16. In Box 2 of the Proof of Claim, Defendants indicated the basis of the claim was 

“Money Loaned”. 

17. Despite referencing a loan, the Proof of Claim included no copies of any loan 

agreement. 

18. In Box 8 of the Proof of Claim, Defendant InfoSource checked the box indicating 

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

19. The Proof of Claim is signed by an employee of InfoSource. 

20. Attached to the Proof of Claim is a document called “Statement of Accounts”. 

21. This document asserts that the InfoSource employee who signed the Proof of 

Claim “relied in part on information provided by an employee at Spot Loan who has personal 

knowledge as to the calculation of the claim amount and a summary of that process. This 

information will be provided upon request.” 

22. Above the signature of the InfoSource employee, the Proof of Claim states, “I 

declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this claim is true and correct to 

the best of my knowledge, information, and reasonable belief.” 

23. Contrary to that declaration, both Spotloan and InfoSource knew that the 

information was not true and correct. 

24. Both Spotloan and InfoSource knew that Spotloan was claiming that it had made 

a loan in the principal amount of $800.00. 

25. Both Spotloan and InfoSource knew that Spotloan claimed the right to charge 

360% annual interest on that loan amount. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 18
 5

26. Both Spotloan and InfoSource knew that Spotloan’s standard business practice 

was to charge excessively high interest on loans made through the internet. 

27. At the time it was filed, both Spotloan and InfoSource knew that the claim 

amount included interest. 

28. Spotloan and InfoSource intentionally and willfully misrepresented in the Proof of 

Claim that no interest was included. 

29. Spotloan and InfoSource intentionally and willfully failed to attach the loan 

documents in their possession which would show that interest was included. 

30. Plaintiff denies owing this debt to Defendants and has objected to the Proof of 

Claim (see Objection filed in Case No. 15-35033-KLP, Docket No. 26, filed May 16, 2016). 

31. Plaintiff’s Objection asserts that the loan is both usurious and void under Virginia 

law. 

32. Plaintiff’s Objection also requested that Defendants provide a copy of the loan 

documents that were not filed with the Proof of Claim. 

33. In response to Plaintiff’s Objection, Defendants filed or caused to be filed an 

Amended Proof of Claim. The Amended Proof of Claim is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 

2. 

34. The Amended Proof of Claim again asserts that no interest or fees are included in 

the claim amount. 

35. The Amended Proof of Claim again asserts, under oath, that the information 

provided is true and correct. 

36. The Amended Proof of Claim includes a copy of the loan agreement showing a 

principal balance of $800.00 and an interest rate of 360%. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 18
 6

37. In the Amended Proof of Claim, Spotloan and InfoSource intentionally and 

willfully misrepresented that no interest was included. 

38. Although the issues in this case can be determined without deciding whether the 

underlying claims are void, upon information and belief, the actions taken by Defendants in their 

efforts to conceal the invalidity of the underlying debts lead to their violations of the FDCPA and 

Bankruptcy Rule 3001. 

39. The loan agreement is a standardized document which asserts that the laws of the 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians apply and “that United States state law does not 

apply to the Loan Agreement in any way.” 

40. Although the loan agreement contains an arbitration clause, it also asserts that it 

“shall remain exclusively subject to the laws and courts of the Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa Indians.” 

41. The choice of forum and choice of law clauses used in Spotloan’s form contract 

seek to disclaim the laws of the United States, and these clauses are unenforceable. See Dillon v. 

BMO Harris Bank, 856 F.3d 330, 335-36 (4th Cir. 2017). 

42. The loan agreement does not disclose that BlueChip Financial is in any way the 

original creditor extending credit. 

43. The loan agreement’s only statement about BlueChip Financial is that the debtor 

irrevocably appoints BlueChip Financial as a “Registrar” who will keep a “Register” of the 

ownership of the loan and the principal and interest owing from time to time. 

44. The loan agreement asserts that the Registrar’s Register is “conclusive” upon the 

parties, “absent clear error”. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 18
 7

45. InfoSource did not become involved in attempting to collect this debt until 

Plaintiff declared bankruptcy and stopped making payments on the debt. 

46. InfoSource has a contract with Spotloan to file Proofs of Claim for Spotloan when 

debtors on Spotloan’s high-interest rate loans declare bankruptcy. 

V. 

COUNT I 

CLASS CLAIM AGAINST INFOSOURCE 

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

47. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs in this 

complaint. 

48. 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 in whose 

bankruptcy cases InfoSource filed Proofs of Claim alleging that a claim owed to 

Spotloan included no interest, fees, or other charges in the claim amount, and that 

state the person signing the Proof of Claim has a reasonable belief that the 

information in the Proof of Claim is true and correct. 

49. 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

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

Members is impracticable. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 18
 8

51. 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 Noticing Center. 

B. Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact 

50. 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 InfoSource violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; 

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

connection with the Proofs of Claim; 

(e) Whether, as a result of InfoSource’s 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 InfoSource’s 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 

51. 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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 18
 9

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

District. 

D. Adequacy 

52. 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. 

53. 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 

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

adjudication of this 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 InfoSource’s 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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 18
 10

(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 InfoSource 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 

55. InfoSource 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. As a result, InfoSource has acted 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. 

56. 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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 18
 11

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 

57. InfoSource 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, 

InfoSource filed Proofs of Claim falsely asserting that a reasonable belief exists that no interest 

or fees were included in the claims even though it knew the claims were based on high-interest 

rate loans and that interest was included. 

58. InfoSource violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by using unfair and unconscionable means 

to collect a debt by filing Proofs of Claim that did not comply with Rule 3001’s requirement that 

the documentation supporting the claims be attached. 

59. As further examples of InfoSource’s standard practice in violation of the FDCPA, 

Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Complaint show the exact practice by InfoSource of withholding 

the documentation underlying the claim. 

60. The standard practice of InfoSource of withholding the documentation underlying 

the claim is unfair and unconscionable because providing that documentation in the first instance 

would show the following; 

a. that interest was included; 

b. that the interest was at an extremely high rate; and 

c. that the loan agreement asserted that no laws of the United States applied. 

61. If the loan agreements had been attached in the first instance in each case, 

bankruptcy trustees and debtor’s counsel could then have knowledgeably decided whether to 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 18
 12

challenge the Proofs of Claim as falsely asserting no interest was included, and also whether to 

challenge the claims as based on usurious or void debts. 

62. As a result of the violations of the FDCPA, InfoSource is liable to Plaintiff and 

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

fees. 

COUNT II 

CLASS CLAIM AGAINST SPOTLOAN 

VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 3001 

63. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs in the 

complaint. 

64. 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 in whose 

bankruptcy cases Proofs of Claim alleged that a claim was owed to Spotloan that 

included no interest, fees, or other charges in the claim amount. 

65. 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. 

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

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

A. Numerosity

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

Members is impracticable. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 18
 13

68. 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 

Noticing Center. 

B. Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact 

69. 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 claim amount actually included interest or fees; 

(b) Whether the Proofs of Claim violate Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001; 

(c) Why Spotloan would file false Proofs of Claim; 

(d) Whether the decision to withhold the documentation underlying the claim was an 

effort to conceal the false assertion of no interest in the claim; 

(e) Whether the decision to withhold the documentation underlying the claim was an 

effort to conceal the terms of the loan agreement, which are unenforceable; 

(f) Whether the decision to withhold the documentation underlying the claim was an 

effort to conceal that the loans were usurious and void; 

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

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

the relief. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 18
 14

C. Typicality 

70. 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 

Spotloan’s common course of conduct: filing Proofs of Claim in this District that violate Rule 

3001. 

D. Adequacy 

71. 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. 

72. 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 

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

adjudication of this controversy for at least the following reasons: 

(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 Spotloan’s unlawful conduct; 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 18
 15

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

seek legal redress for the wrongs that Spotloan 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 Spotloan 

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 Spotloan. 

F. Injunctive Relief 

74. Spotloan knowingly filed or knowingly authorized the filing of 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, Spotloan 

has acted or refused to act on 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. 

Case 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 18
 16

75. 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 

Spotloan. 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 

76. Spotloan violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(1) by filing or 

authorizing the filing of Proofs of Claim that intentionally omit the documentation underlying 

the claims. 

77. Spotloan violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(2) by filing or 

authorizing the filing of Proofs of Claim that intentionally falsely assert that no interest or fees or 

other charges were in the claim amounts, and that fail to include an itemized statement of the 

interest, fees, expenses, or charges that it knew were actually incurred before the bankruptcy 

petitions were filed and which were included in the claim amounts. 

78. Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6 show the exact practice of Proofs of Claim filed on 

Spotloan’s behalf that withhold the documentation underlying the claim. 

79. As a result of the violations of the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c), 

and as the “holder of the claim”, Spotloan 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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 18
 17

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 

against InfoSource in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; 

(v) An award of the appropriate remedy as determined by this Court for Spotloan’s 

violations of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(1), including but not 

limited to striking Spotloan’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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 18
 18

Respectfully submitted, 

 DORI DANYELLE WINGATE 

 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 17-04453-KLP Doc 1 Filed 06/13/17 Entered 06/13/17 16:40:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 18 of 18