1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

 

Jesus Chinea Trujillo, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated; Civil Action No: ____________

Plaintiff,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-v.-

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC

John Does 1-25

Defendant. 

Plaintiff Jesus Chinea Trujillo (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), a Florida resident, brings this Class Action 

Complaint by and through her attorneys, Zeig Law Firm, LLC against Defendant Portfolio Recovery 

Associates LLC (hereinafter “Defendant PRA”), individually and on behalf of a class of all others 

similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based upon 

information and belief of Plaintiff’s counsel, except for allegations specifically pertaining to 

Plaintiff, which are based upon Plaintiff's personal knowledge.

INTRODUCTION/PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “the FDCPA”)

in 1977 in response to the "abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt 

collection practices by many debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. §1692(a). At that time, Congress was 

concerned that "abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal 

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 1 of 10
bankruptcies, to material instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." 

Id. Congress concluded that "existing laws...[we]re inadequate to protect consumers," and that 

"'the effective collection of debts" does not require "misrepresentation or other abusive debt 

collection practices." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(b) & (c).

2. Congress explained that the purpose of the Act was not only to eliminate abusive 

debt collection practices, but also to "insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using 

abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." Id. § 1692(e). “After 

determining that the existing consumer protection laws ·were inadequate.” Id. § l692(b), 

Congress gave consumers a private cause of action against debt collectors who fail to comply 

with the Act. Id. § 1692k.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. The Court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over the State law claims in this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as this is 

where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

5. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of Florida consumers under

§1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt 

Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and

6. Plaintiff is seeking damages and declaratory relief.

PARTIES

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 2 of 10
7. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of Miami-Dade, residing at 

12020 SW 185th Terrace, Miami, FL 33177.

8. Defendant PRA is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692(a)(6) and used in the FDCPA with an address at 120 Corporate Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23502

and may be served process upon the Corporation Service Company at 1201 Hays Street, 

Tallahassee, FL 32301-2525.

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant PRA is a company that uses the mail, 

telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to 

attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

10. John Does l-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the 

purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery and 

should be made parties to this action.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

12. The Class consists of: 

a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Florida;

b. to whom Defendant PRA sent a collection letter attempting to collect a consumer 

debt;

c. that included materially misleading and deceptive language regarding whether 

the account would be considered paid-in-full or considered paid-in-full for less 

than the full balance after final payment is made; 

d. while also promising that the tradeline would be deleted within thirty (30) days 

of the final payment.

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 3 of 10
e. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior to the filing of this 

action and on or before a date twenty-one (2l) days after the filing of this action.

13. The identities of all class members are readily ascertainable from the records of 

Defendants and those companies and entities on whose behalf they attempt to collect and/or

have purchased debts.

14. Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the Defendants and all officer, members, 

partners, managers, directors and employees of the Defendants and their respective immediate 

families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate

families. 

15. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, which common 

issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue 

is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms attached as 

Exhibit A, violate 15 U.S.C. §§ l692e.

16. The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members, as all are based upon the same 

facts and legal theories. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

Plaintiff Class defined in this complaint. The Plaintiff has retained counsel with experience in 

handling consumer lawsuits, complex legal issues, and class actions, and neither the Plaintiff 

nor his attorneys have any interests, which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.

17. This action has been brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a 

well-defined community interest in the litigation:

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 4 of 10
a. Numerosity: The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, 

that the Plaintiff Class defined above is so numerous that joinder of all members 

would be impractical.

b. Common Questions Predominate: Common questions of law and fact exist as 

to all members of the Plaintiff Class and those questions predominance over any 

questions or issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue 

is whether the Defendants' written communications to consumers, in the forms 

attached as Exhibit A violate 15 USC §l692e.

c. Typicality: The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members. 

The Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class have claims arising out of the 

Defendants' common uniform course of conduct complained of herein.

d. Adequacy: The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class members insofar as Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the absent 

class members. The Plaintiff is committed to vigorously litigating this matter.

Plaintiff has also retained counsel experienced in handling consumer lawsuits,

complex legal issues, and class actions. Neither the Plaintiff nor his counsel have

any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the instant class

action lawsuit.

e. Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual joinder of all 

members would be impracticable. Class action treatment will permit a large 

number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single 

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 5 of 10
forum efficiently and without unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that

individual actions would engender.

18. Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

is also appropriate in that the questions of law and fact common to members of the Plaintiff 

Class predominate over any questions affecting an individual member, and a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

19. Depending on the outcome of further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff may, at 

the time of class certification motion, seek to certify a class(es) only as to particular issues 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

numbered above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length 

herein.

21. Some time prior to December 17, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to 

Barclays Bank Delaware.

22. The Barclays Bank Delaware obligation arose out of transactions in which money, 

property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for 

personal, family or household purposes.

23. Specifically, the Barclays Bank Delaware debt, was a credit card used for personal, 

family and household purchases.

24. The alleged Barclays Bank Delaware obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 

1692a(5).

25. Barclays Bank Delaware is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(4).

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 6 of 10
26. Defendant PRA, a debt collector and the subsequent owner of the Barclays Bank 

Delaware debt, is collecting the alleged debt.

27. Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been 

incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United 

States Postal Services, telephone and internet.

Violation I – February 25, 2020 Collection Letter

28. On or about February 25, 2020, Defendant PRA sent the Plaintiff a debt collection 

letter (the “Letter”) regarding the alleged debt owed. See Exhibit A.

29. The Letter states a balance of $2,468.88.

30. The Letter offers two options regarding the balance: Either pay the full amount or 

select a “savings plan” that allows the consumer to pay the balance for a discounted amount.

31. Below the offer to pay in full, the letter states: “Your Account will be considered 

paid-in-full after your final payment is successfully posted.”

32. Below the offer to pay the discounted amount, the letter states: “The savings will be 

applied to the balance and your account will be considered paid-in-full for less than the full 

balance after your final payment is successfully posted.”

33. Below both offers, the Letter includes a sentence that states: “Within approximately 

30 days of your final payment successfully posting, we will request that the three major credit 

reporting agencies delete our tradeline related to your account from your credit bureau report.”

34. The statement that Defendant will request deletion from the credit bureaus upon final 

payment is not qualified in any way and the plain reading implies that these deletion will take 

place in both scenarios; whether the balance is paid in full or paid for less than the full balance.

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 7 of 10
35. Upon Defendant’s request to delete the tradeline from the credit bureaus upon final 

payment, the account will no longer appear on the credit report of the Plaintiff in any form.

36. Therefore, there is no consequence to Defendant’s earlier statements in the Letter 

that the account will be “considered” paid in full or “paid in full for less than the full balance,” 

because in either scenario, the account will simply not appear on Plaintiff’s credit report.

37. The earlier statements are deceptive and misleading, because they propose to offer a

benefit of considering the account “paid-in-full,” which essentially does not exist, because the 

account will be deleted entirely upon final payment.

38. Just the fact that letter at all states that there is a status for each type of payment 

option is misleading, when in fact either option results in a complete wiping away of the account 

having existed at all.

39. In the alternative, if Defendant’s statement that they will request a deletion of 

tradeline is hinged upon selection of only one of the payment options, then the Letter is unclear 

and misleading for not properly elucidating that fact. 

40. Plaintiff incurred an informational injury because the Defendants falsely describe the 

effects of full payment as opposed to less than full payment.

41. As a result of Defendants deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, 

Plaintiff has been damaged.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. §1692e 

et seq.

42. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 

above herein with the same force and effect as if the same were set forth at length herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 8 of 10
43. Defendants debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed towards the Plaintiff 

violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

44. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.

45. Defendants violated §1692e:

a. By making a false and misleading representation in violation of §1692e(10).

46. By reason thereof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that Defendants 

conduct violated Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, actual damages, statutory damages, costs 

and attorneys’ fees.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

47. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests 

a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jesus Chinea Trujillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, demands judgment from Defendant PRA as follows:

1. Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and certifying 

Plaintiff as Class representative, and Justin Zeig, Esq. as Class Counsel;

2. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages;

3. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class actual damages;

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 9 of 10
4. Awarding Plaintiff costs of this Action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

expenses;

5. Awarding pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest; and

6. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as this Court may deem 

just and proper.

Dated: May 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Justin Zeig

Justin Zeig, Esq.

FL Bar No. 112306

3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310

Hollywood, FL 33021

Telephone: 754-217-3084

Fax: 954-272-7807

justin@zeiglawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-22215-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 10 of 10