PAGE | 1 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 

RICHARD MOYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCH RAINES, LLP, JENNA 

MANAGEMENT, INC., CYPRESS ISLAND 

APARTMENTS #2, INC., and VINNIE 

CATANIA,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff Richard Moyer (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants Wasch Raines, LLP, , Cypress Island 

Apartments #2, Inc., Jenna Management, Inc., and Vinnie Catania (collectively, the “Defendants”)

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

Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

28 U.S.C. § 1337.

2. Supplemental jurisdiction exists for the claims arising under FCCPA pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §1367.

3. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides here, Defendants transacts 

business here, and the complained conduct of Defendants occurred here.

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 1 of 11
PAGE | 2 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward 

County, Florida.

5. Defendant Wasch Raines, LLP (“W-R”) is a Florida limited liability partnership, 

with its principal place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida.

6. W-R engages in interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and mail in a 

business whose principal purpose is the collection of debts.

7. Defendant Cypress Island Apartments #2, Inc. (“Cypress”) is a Florida corporation, 

with its principal place of business located in Pompano Beach, Florida.

8. Defendant Jenna Management, Inc. (“J-M”) is a Florida corporation, with its 

principal place of business located in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

9. Defendant Vinnie Catania (“Catania”) is a natural person, and a citizen of the State 

of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10. Plaintiff, respectfully, demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. J-M is a property management company responsible for, among other things, the 

collection of maintenance assessments due to Cypress, a homeowner’s association.

12. As such, J-M is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer 

debts, and W-R regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due 

or asserted to be owed or due another.

13. Catania is an employee and/or agent of J-M, whereby the Complained of conduct 

of J-M was performed by Catania within the scope of Catania’s employment and/or agency.

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 2 of 11
PAGE | 3 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

14. W-R is a debt collector hired by J-M to collect debts allegedly owed by Plaintiff to 

Cypress (the “Consumer Debt”). 

15. The Consumer Debt comprised of, inter alia, maintenance assessments that J-M, 

Catania, and Cypress knew Plaintiff had already paid. Simply put, the Consumer Debt had been 

paid by Plaintiff, Defendants just wanted Plaintiff to pay twice.

16. W-R is a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for 

collection.

17. W-R is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.

18. W-R regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or 

due or asserted to be owed or due another.

19. On or about December 18, 2019, W-R sent a letter to Plaintiff (the “Collection 

Letter”) in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff. A copy of the Collection Letter 

is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

20. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising 

from a transaction between Plaintiff and Cypress for maintenance of property owed by Plaintiff 

(the “Subject Service”).

21. The Subject Service was primarily for personal and household purposes.

22. The Collection Letter represents an action to collect a debt by W-R.

23. The Collection Letter is a communication from W-R to Plaintiff in connection with 

the collection of a debt. 

24. The Collection Letter represents W-R’s initial communication with Plaintiff in 

connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 3 of 11
PAGE | 4 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

25. W-R states in the Collection Letter: “Please be advised that the undersigned law 

firm, Wasch Raines, LLP, a debt collector, represents Cypress Island Apartments #2, Inc., a 

creditor.” Collection Letter.

26. The Collection Letter utilizes W-R’s law firm letterhead, of states “ATTORNEYS 

AT LAW” immediately under the “WASCH | RAINES” caption. Collection Letter. 

27. W-R states in the Collection Letter: 

RE: Our File: CI-05 Account: Richard Moyer owed to Cypress 

Island Apartment #2. Inc. (Creditor). Amounts past due and 

owing: #1,260.30 through December 31,2019 or $1,697.30 

through January 15, 2020.

Collection Letter at 1(emphasis original). 

28. W-R states in the Collection Letter: 

Please pay by money order or certified check the sum of $1,260.30

payable to ‘WASCH RAINES, LLP’ on or before December 31, 

2019, to the undersigned law firm, Wasch Raines, LLP, a debt 

collector, at 2500 N. Military Trail, Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida 

33431. Please pay by money order or certified check the sum of 

$1,697.30 payable to ‘WASCH RAINES, LLP’ on or before January 

15, 2020, to the undersigned law firm, Wasch Raines, LLP, a debt 

collector, at 2500 N. Military Trail, Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida 

33431.

Collection Letter at 2 (emphasis original). 

29. W-R did not exercise any professional judgment, as an attorney, before mailing the 

Collection Letter to Plaintiff. 

30. W-R did not conduct a meaningful review of Plaintiff’s file prior to sending the 

Collection Letter to Plaintiff. 

31. W-R did not send the Collection Letter to Plaintiff as an attorney.

32. W-R sent the Collection Letter to Plaintiff as a debt collector.

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 4 of 11
PAGE | 5 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

33. W-R states in the Collection Letter: “NOTICE: This is an attempt to collect a debt. 

Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This is a communication from a debt 

collector.” Collection Letter.

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) & § 1692e

(against Defendant W-R)

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

35. As stated above, the Collection Letter represents W-R’s initial communication with 

Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. In the Collection Letter, W-R

attempts to provide Plaintiff with, among other things, the disclosures required by § 1692g(a)(3)-

(5) of the FDCPA. The Collection Letter, however, wrongfully overshadows the rights enjoyed by 

the least sophisticated consumer pursuant to § 1692g(a)(3)-(5) of the FDCPA. 

36. The Collection Letter explicitly proffers two payment deadlines to the least 

sophisticated consumer. See Collection Letter (demanding that the least sophisticated consumer 

either pay “$1,260.30 ... to ‘WASCH RAINES, LLP’ on or before December 31, 2019...,” or pay 

“$1,697.30 ... to ‘WASCH RAINES, LLP’ on or before January 15, 2020.”). The date listed on 

the Collection Letter, however, is December 18, 2019. 

37. Even assuming the Collection Letter was received on December 18, 2019 (of which 

Plaintiff does not concede, as Plaintiff receive the letter on a much latter date), such renders the 

payment deadline of December 31, 2019, woefully short of the 30-day dispute period afforded to 

the least sophisticated consumer. 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 5 of 11
PAGE | 6 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

38. As such, by and through the Collection Letter, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692g(b) and § 1692e by wrongfully overshadowing and otherwise unlawfully misrepresenting

the dispute rights enjoyed by the least sophisticated consumer under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3)-(5).

39. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant W-R, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) Statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 

(b) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and 

(c) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the 

circumstances.

COUNT 2

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) & (B)

(against Defendant W-R)

40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

41. In the Collection Letter, W-R attempts to collect, among other things, monthly 

maintenance assessments that Plaintiff had already paid. Further, the Collection Letter seeks to 

assess “attorneys’ fees” in the amount of $300. Simply put, not only does the Collection Letter 

unlawfully misrepresent the amount actually owed by Plaintiff, the Collection Letter further 

misrepresents the amount of compensation which W-R may lawfully collect from Plaintiff. Here, 

W-R does not possess any statutory or contractual right to collect attorneys’ fees from Plaintiff, let 

alone collect a debt that does not exist. as any entitlement to fees which W-R may be entitled 

otherwise arises from the lawful collection of an unpaid debt. 

42. As such, by and through the Collection Letter, Defendant violates § 1692e(2)(A) 

by falsely representing that the least sophisticated consumer owed an amount far in excess of what 

was truly owed, as well as § 1692e(2)(B) by false representing that it (W-R) could have lawfully 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 6 of 11
PAGE | 7 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

received $300 worth of “attorneys fees” from the least sophisticated consumer as part of the 

Consumer Debt.

43. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant W-R, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) Statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 

(b) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and 

(c) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the 

circumstances.

COUNT 3

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3)

(against Defendant W-R)

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

45. W-R sent the Collection Letter to Plaintiff using its law firm letterhead, but in so 

doing, W-R did not exercise any professional judgment, as an attorney, before sending the 

Collection Letter to Plaintiff, nor did W-R otherwise conduct a meaningful review of Plaintiff’s 

file prior to mailing the Collection Letter to Plaintiff. 

46. The Collection Letter’s use of law firm letterhead falsely represents and/or implies 

that the Collection Letter was a communication from an attorney. See Boyd v. Wexler, 275 F.3d 

642, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding that although the collection attorney’s affidavit stated that he 

reviewed every file before a [collection letter] was sent, the mere volume of that undertaking (tens 

of thousands in some weeks, hundreds of thousands of dunning letters a year) was sufficient to 

permit a reasonable jury to conclude that “the defendant violated the FDCPA by rubber stamping 

his clients’ demands for payment, thus misrepresenting to the recipients of his dunning letters that 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 7 of 11
PAGE | 8 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

a lawyer had made a minimally responsible determination that there was probable cause to believe 

that the recipient actually owed the amount claimed by the creditor.”). 

47. As such, W-R violated § 1692e(3) of the FDCPA, by and through the Collection 

Letter, by falsely representing and/or imply to the least sophisticated consumer that the Collection 

Letter was a communication from an attorney. 

48. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendant W-R, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) Statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; 

(b) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and 

(c) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate and just under the 

circumstances.

COUNT 4

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(11)

(against Defendant W-R and Defendant Cypress)

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

50. W-R violated Fla. Stat. § 559.72(11) communicating with Plaintiff under the guise 

of an attorney by utilizing the stationery of an attorney, to wit, the Collection Letter, in an attempt 

to deceptively collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff. 

51. For example, W-R, by and through the Collection Letter, wrongfully causes the 

least sophisticated consumer to believe meaningful and adequate scrutiny of the consumer’s file 

occurred before the Collection Letter was mailed. Had this occurred, perhaps W-R would not have 

attempted to collect a debt that had already been paid by Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Collection 

Letter causes the least sophisticated consumer to wrongfully believe that he or she received a letter 

from an attorney. As mentioned above, however, Defendant did not exercise any professional 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 8 of 11
PAGE | 9 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

judgment as an attorney or conduct any meaningful review of Plaintiff’s file as an attorney prior 

to mailing the Collection Letter. Simply put, the Collection Letter was mailed to Plaintiff by W-R

in W-R’s capacity as a debt collector – not an attorney. 

52. In so doing, W-R acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect the 

Consumer Debt on Cypress’ behalf. W-R sought to collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff 

because W-R had contracted with Cypress’ for the provision of such services. Cypress’ purposely 

provided Defendant-DC with the information to collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff. Here, 

W-R’s violation of § 559.72(11) is the result of W-R’s acts and/or omissions, whereby such acts 

and/or omission occurred within the scope and course of the agency relationship between W-R

and Cypress, and as a result, Cypress is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation. As such, by 

and though the Collection Letter, W-R and Cypress violated § 559.72(11) of the FCCPA.

53. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendants W-R and Cypress, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) Statutory and actual damages as provided under Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); 

(b) An injunction prohibiting W-R from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiff that are in violation of the FCCPA; 

(c) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); and 

(d) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT 5

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against Defendant J-M and Defendant Catania)

54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

55. Despite knowing that it did not have any statutory or contractual right to attempt to 

collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff, J-M, by and through Catania, contacted W-R to collect, 

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 9 of 11
PAGE | 10 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

or attempt to collect, the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff – and in so doing – J-M disclosed to W-R 

false information about Plaintiff and/or information that W-R had no legitimate business need for, 

the likes of which affected the reputation of Plaintiff. 

56. For example, J-M (by and through Catania) disclosed to W-R, among other things: 

[1] the existence of the Consumer Debt; [2] that the Consumer Debt was owed to Cypress by 

Plaintiff; and [3] that Plaintiff did not pay the Consumer Debt and/or Plaintiff defaulted on the 

debt. Such disclosures affected Plaintiff’s reputation. For example, the disclosure affected 

Plaintiff’s reputation regarding the repayment of debts, Plaintiff’s reputation of truthfulness, 

Plaintiff’s reputation of solvency, and Plaintiff’s reputation regarding trustworthiness. 

57. Catania acted with the apparent authority of J-M when Catania disclosed false 

information about Plaintiff to W-R and/or disclosed to W-R information about Plaintiff that W-R 

did not have any legitimate business need for. Catania purposely provided J-M with the 

information, albeit false, needed to attempt collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff. 

58. Simply put, J-M’s violation of § 559.72(5) is the result of Catania acts and/or 

omissions, whereby such acts and/or omission occurred within the scope and course of the agency 

relationship between Catania and J-M, and as a result, Catania is vicariously liable for the same.

59. As such, W-R and Catania violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

60. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Defendants Catania and J-M, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

(a) Statutory and actual damages as provided under Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); 

(b) An injunction prohibiting Catania and J-M from engaging in further 

collection activities directed at Plaintiff that are in violation of the FCCPA; 

(c) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); and 

(d) Any other relief that this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 10 of 11
PAGE | 11 of 11

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor | Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 | Phone (954) 907-1136 | Fax (855) 529-9540 

www.JibraelLaw.com

DATED: March 23, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Jibrael S. Hindi .

JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118259

E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118377

E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com

The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Phone: 954-907-1136

Fax: 855-529-9540

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 0:20-cv-60614-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2020 Page 11 of 11