PAGE | 1 of 36

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. 0:20-cv-61297-RKA

PAMELA TITUS,

JOSEPH AMODIO, 

WILLIAM VILCINA,

JACQUELINE FONTANEZ,

PAUL JONES,

BRYON HALL, 

and DAMIEN DAY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P.,

LVNV FUNDING, LLC,

MERRICK BANK CORPORATION,

PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,

and PYOD, LLC,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT [1]

Plaintiffs Pamela Titus, Joseph Amodio, William Vilcina, Jacqueline Fontanez, Paul Jones, 

Bryon Hall, and Damien Day (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) sue Defendant Resurgent Capital 

Services L.P., Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendant Merrick Bank Corporation, Defendant 

PYOD, LLC, and Defendant Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) for 

violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and 

Fla. Stat. §§ 559.72(5) and (9) of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”).

[1] Case Number 0:20-cv-61297-RKA (i.e., the above-captioned case number) represents the 

consolidation of, in addition to the original pleadings filed in this action, the cases: 0:20-cv-61317, 

0:20-cv-61394, 0:20-cv-61395, 0:20-cv-61412, 0:20-cv-61417, 0:20-cv-61419, 0:20-cv-61311, 

0:20-cv-61315, 0:20-cv-61430, 0:20-cv-61382, 0:20-cv-61318, 0:20-cv-61301, and 0:20-cv61477.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 36
PAGE | 2 of 36

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

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 Plaintiffs resides here, Defendants transacts 

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

PARTIES

4. Plaintiffs are each a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in 

Broward County, Florida.

5. Defendant Resurgent Capital Services L.P. (“Resurgent”) is Delaware limited 

partnership, with its principal place of business located in Greensville, South Carolina.

6. Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) is a Delaware limited liability 

company, with its principal place of business located in Greensville, South Carolina.

7. Defendant Merrick Bank Corporation (“M-Bank”) is a Utah corporation, with its 

principal place of business located in South Jordan, Utah.

8. Defendant Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC (“Pinnacle”) is a Minnesota limited 

liability company, with its principal place of business located in Greenville, South Carolina.

9. Defendant PYOD, LLC (“PYOD”) is a Delaware limited liability company, with 

its principal place of business located in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10. Plaintiffs, respectfully, demand a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 2 of 36
PAGE | 3 of 36

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

ALLEGATIONS

11. Resurgent is an entity required to register with the Florida Office of Financial 

Regulation as a “Consumer Collection Agency” to lawfully collect consumer debts in Florida. 

12. LVNV is an entity required to register with the Florida Office of Financial 

Regulation as a “Consumer Collection Agency” to lawfully collect consumer debts in Florida. 

13. Pinnacle is an entity required to register with the Florida Office of Financial 

Regulation as a “Consumer Collection Agency” to lawfully collect consumer debts in Florida. 

14. PYOD is an entity required to register with the Florida Office of Financial 

Regulation as a “Consumer Collection Agency” to lawfully collect consumer debts in Florida. 

15. Resurgent is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a 

“Consumer Collection Agency.” 

16. LVNV is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a “Consumer 

Collection Agency.” 

17. Pinnacle is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a 

“Consumer Collection Agency.”

18. PYOD is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a “Consumer 

Collection Agency.”

19. Resurgent’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA0900145. 

20. LVNV’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA9902540. 

21. Pinnacle’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA0900339.

22. PYOD’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA9902541.

23. For the “Consumer Collection Agency” license of each Resurgent, LVNV, 

Pinnacle, and PYOD, to remain valid, Resurgent, LVNV, Pinnacle, and PYOD, are each 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 3 of 36
PAGE | 4 of 36

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

respectively required to maintain, at minimum, all records specified in Rule 69V-180.080, Florida 

Administrative Code, and keep such records current within one week of the current date. 

24. Rule 69V-180.080(3)(e) of the Florida Administrative Code commands that 

Resurgent, LVNV, Pinnacle, and PYOD, shall maintain: “[t]he debtor’s account of activity 

disclosing... a record of payments made by the debtor, including the date received and the amount 

and balance owing.” 

25. Rule 69V-180.080(9)(a)-(b) of the Florida Administrative Code commands that 

that Resurgent, LVNV, Pinnacle, and PYOD, shall maintain: “basic information about the debt 

including, at minimum... [d]ocumentation of the debt provided by the creditor,” as well as “[t]he 

date the debt was incurred and the date of the last payment.” 

26. Resurgent, LVNV, Pinnacle, and PYOD, each, maintain all the records specified in 

Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code.

27. The records specified by Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code, of which 

Resurgent, LVNV, Pinnacle, and PYOD, do maintain, are current to within one week of the current 

date. 

28. Each of the below-alleged sixteen (16) debts (collectively, the “Consumer Debts”) 

that Defendants sought to collect originated, and otherwise arose, from a transaction between the 

respective plaintiff and corresponding original creditor, whereby each transaction was primarily 

for the personal benefit of said plaintiff. 

29. Each of the Consumer Debts are comprised of principal, interest, and fees, whereby 

the total amount owed with respect to each of the Consumer Debts, pursuant to the agreement 

underlying it, are subject to increase based on the principal portion of the debt and the interest and 

fees which said principal is subject thereto. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 4 of 36
PAGE | 5 of 36

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

30. On January 15, 2007, LVNV conveyed a limited power of attorney (“PoA-1”) to 

Resurgent for purposes of engaging in certain collection efforts on its (LVNV’s) behalf, including, 

but not limited to, the filing of bankruptcy proofs of claim.

31. On September 29, 2009, M-Bank conveyed a limited power of attorney (“PoA-2”) 

to Resurgent for purposes of engaging in certain collection efforts on its (M-Bank’s) behalf, 

including, but not limited to, the filing of bankruptcy proofs of claim.

32. On July 31, 2008, PYOD conveyed a limited power of attorney (“PoA-3”) to 

Resurgent for purposes of engaging in certain collection efforts on its (PYOD’s) behalf, including, 

but not limited to, the filing of bankruptcy proofs of claim.

33. On April 18, 2016, Pinnacle conveyed a limited power of attorney (“PoA-4”) to 

Resurgent for purposes of engaging in certain collection efforts on its (Pinnacle’s) behalf, 

including, but not limited to, the filing of bankruptcy proofs of claim.

34. Subsequent to the conveyance of each PoA-1, PoA-2, PoA-3, and PoA-4 

(collectively, the “PoAs”) to Resurgent, or otherwise contemporaneous therewith, the Consumer 

Debts were assigned and/or referred to Resurgent for collection under the terms the applicable 

power of attorney. 

35. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debts of Plaintiffs 

Titus, Hall, Amodio, Vilcina, Fontanez, Jones, and Day, to Resurgent, LVNV disclosed to 

Resurgent false information about Plaintiffs Titus, Hall, Amodio, Vilcina, Fontanez, Jones, and 

Day, and/or information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which 

affected the reputation of Plaintiffs Titus, Hall, Amodio, Vilcina, Fontanez, Jones, and Day. For 

example, LVNV falsely disclosed to Resurgent (the “Disclosures of LVNV”), among other things,

that each of the Consumer Debts of Plaintiffs Titus, Hall, Amodio, Vilcina, Fontanez, Jones, and 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 5 of 36
PAGE | 6 of 36

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

Day, were comprised entirely of principal and, in so doing, falsely represented the amount and 

character of each respective debt. 

36. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debts of Plaintiffs 

Titus and Amodio to Resurgent, M-Bank disclosed to Resurgent false information about Titus and 

Amodio and/or information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which 

affected the reputation of Titus and Amodio. For example, M-Bank falsely disclosed to Resurgent 

(the “Disclosures of M-Bank”), among other things, that each of the Consumer Debts were 

comprised entirely of principal and, in so doing, falsely represented the amount and character of 

each respective debt. 

37. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debt of Plaintiff 

Fontanez to Resurgent, PYOD disclosed to Resurgent false information about Plaintiff Fontanez 

and/or information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected 

the reputation of Plaintiff Fontanez. For example, PYOD falsely disclosed to Resurgent (the 

“Disclosures of PYOD”), among other things, that the consumer debt of Plaintiff Fontanez was 

comprised entirely of principal and, in so doing, falsely represented the amount and character of 

said debt of Plaintiff Fontanez. 

38. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debt of Plaintiff 

Vilcina to Resurgent, Pinnacle disclosed to Resurgent false information about Plaintiff Vilcina 

and/or information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected 

the reputation of Plaintiff Vilcina. For example, Pinnacle falsely disclosed to Resurgent (the 

“Disclosures of Pinnacle”), among other things, that the consumer debt of Plaintiff Vilcina was 

comprised entirely of principal and, in so doing, falsely represented the amount and character of 

said debt of Plaintiff Vilcina. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 6 of 36
PAGE | 7 of 36

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

39. The Disclosures of LVNV, the Disclosures of M-Bank, the Disclosures of PYOD, 

and the Disclosures of Pinnacle, each, affected the respective reputation of Plaintiffs. For example, 

the disclosure affected Plaintiffs’ reputation regarding the repayment of debts, Plaintiffs’

reputation of truthfulness, Plaintiffs’ reputation of solvency, and Plaintiffs’ reputation regarding 

trustworthiness. 

40. By way of documents and information Resurgent maintains in accordance with 

Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code: [1] Resurgent knew that each of the Consumer 

Debts were comprised of principal, interest, and fees; [2] Resurgent knew that the overall amount 

of each of the Consumer Debts were subject to increase by way of interest and/or fees; and [3] 

Resurgent knew that none of the Consumer Debts were comprised entirely of principal. 

41. By way of documents and information LVNV maintains in accordance with Rule 

69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code: [1] LVNV knew that each of the respective Consumer 

Debts were comprised of principal, interest, and fees; [2] LVNV knew that the overall amount of 

each of said Consumer Debts were subject to increase by way of interest and/or fees; and [3] 

LVNV knew that none of said Consumer Debts were comprised entirely of principal. 

42. By way of documents and information PYOD maintains in accordance with Rule 

69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code: [1] PYOD knew that the consumer debt of Fontanez 

was comprised of principal, interest, and fees; [2] PYOD knew that the overall amount of said 

consumer debt was subject to increase by way of interest and/or fees; and [3] PYOD knew that 

said consumer debt was not comprised entirely of principal. 

43. By way of documents and information Pinnacle maintains in accordance with Rule 

69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code: [1] Pinnacle knew that the consumer debt of Vilcina 

was comprised of principal, interest, and fees; [2] Pinnacle knew that the overall amount of said 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 7 of 36
PAGE | 8 of 36

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

consumer debt was subject to increase by way of interest and/or fees; and [3] Pinnacle knew that 

said consumer debt was not comprised entirely of principal. 

44. As elaborated below, (Count 1) Resurgent violated § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA, 

(Count 2) Resurgent and LVNV violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing false proofs of 

claim in each of the Plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding, (Count 3) Resurgent and M-Bank violated 

§ 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing false proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of Titus 

and Amodio, (Count 4) Resurgent and PYOD violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing a 

false proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of Fontanez, (Count 5) Resurgent and Pinnacle

violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing a false proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding 

of Vilcina, (Count 6) LVNV violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false information to 

Resurgent that affecting the reputation of each of the Plaintiffs, (Count 7) M-Bank violated § 

559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent that affecting the reputation 

of Titus and Amodio, (Count 8) PYOD violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false 

information to Resurgent that affecting the reputation of Fontanez, and (Count 9) Pinnacle

violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent that affecting the 

reputation of Vilcina.

ALLEGATIONS OF TITUS

45. On October 15, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-1”) in Titus’ bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., as 

the original creditor of the debt, and Titus, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-1”). Prior 

to the filing of PoC-1, but after Titus had defaulted on Debt-1, all rights, title, and interest in Debt1 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-1 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 8 of 36
PAGE | 9 of 36

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

employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-1, was acting within the course and scope of his 

or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-1 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-1. PoC-1 falsely represents Debt-1 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-1 as $910.65. By 

signing PoC-1 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-1 as being $910.65. Further, by signing PoC-1 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of 

Debt-1 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

46. On October 24, 2019, acting on behalf of M-Bank, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-2, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-2”) in Titus’ bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between M-Bank and Titus, involving an 

unsecure line of credit (“Debt-2”). Titus had defaulted on Debt-2 prior to the filing of PoC-2. PoC2 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s employee, Susan Gaines, who, when signing 

PoC-2, was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-2

is a representation, means, and/or communication in connection with the collection of Debt-2. 

PoC-2 falsely represents Debt-2 as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely 

represents the principal portion of Debt-2 as $1,691.85. By signing PoC-2 under penalty of perjury 

and on behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-2 as 

being $1,691.85. Further, by signing PoC-2 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, 

Susan Gaines falsely represented the total amount of Debt-2 as being only principal and containing 

no interest or fees. 

47. On January 02, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-3”) in Titus’ bankruptcy case in connection with 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 9 of 36
PAGE | 10 of 36

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

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Titus, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-3”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-3, but after Titus had defaulted on Debt-3, all rights, title, and interest in Debt-3

had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-3 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-3, was acting within the course and scope of his 

or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-2 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-2. PoC-3 falsely represents Debt-3 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-3 as $792.03. By 

signing PoC-3 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-3 as being $792.03. Further, by signing PoC-3 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of 

Debt-3 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

48. On January 02, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-4”) in Titus’ bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Titus, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-4”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-4, but after Titus had defaulted on Debt-4, all rights, title, and interest in Debt-4

had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-4 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-4, was acting within the course and scope of his 

or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-4 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-4. PoC-4 falsely represents Debt-4 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-4 as $552.66. By 

signing PoC-4 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 10 of 36
PAGE | 11 of 36

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

represented the principal portion of Debt-4 as being $552.66. Further, by signing PoC-4 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of 

Debt-4 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

49. On January 02, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-5”) in Titus’ bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between General Electric Capital 

Corporation, as the original creditor of the debt, and Titus, involving an unsecure line of credit 

(“Debt-5”). Prior to the filing of PoC-5, but after Titus had defaulted on Debt-5, all rights, title, 

and interest in Debt-5 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-5 was signed under penalty of perjury 

by Resurgent’s employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-5, was acting within the course 

and scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-5 is a representation, means, and/or 

communication in connection with the collection of Debt-5. PoC-5 falsely represents Debt-5 as 

being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-5

as $448.11. By signing PoC-5 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb

falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-5 as being $448.11. Further, by signing PoC-5

under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total 

amount of Debt-5 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF HALL

50. On September 25, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms 

of PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-6”) in Hall’s bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between First Premier Bank, as the original 

creditor of the debt, and Hall, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-6”). Prior to the filing 

of PoC-6, but after Hall had defaulted on Debt-6, all rights, title, and interest in Debt-6 had been 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 11 of 36
PAGE | 12 of 36

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

purchased by LVNV. PoC-6 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s employee, 

William Andrews, who, when signing PoC-6, was acting within the course and scope of his or her 

employment with Resurgent. PoC-6 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-6. PoC-6 falsely represents Debt-6 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-6 as $455.35. By 

signing PoC-6 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-6 as being $455.35. Further, by signing PoC-6 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely represented the total 

amount of Debt-6 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

51. On September 24, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms 

of PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-7”) in Hall’s bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., as 

the original creditor of the debt, and Hall, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-7”). Prior 

to the filing of PoC-7, but after Hall had defaulted on Debt-7, all rights, title, and interest in Debt7 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-7 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-7, was acting within the course and scope of his 

or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-7 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-7. PoC-7 falsely represents Debt-7 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-7 as $886.68. By 

signing PoC-7 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-7 as being $886.68. Further, by signing PoC-7 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of 

Debt-7 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 12 of 36
PAGE | 13 of 36

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

52. On October 21, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-8”) in Hall’s bankruptcy case in connection with 

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between AmeriCredit Financial Services, 

Inc., as the original creditor of the debt, and Hall, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-8”). 

Prior to the filing of PoC-8, but after Hall had defaulted on Debt-8, all rights, title, and interest in 

Debt-8 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-8 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, Suzanne Dickson, who, when signing PoC-8, was acting within the course and scope 

of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-8 is a representation, means, and/or communication 

in connection with the collection of Debt-8. PoC-8 falsely represents Debt-8 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-8 as $16,737.30. 

By signing PoC-8 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Suzanne Dickson falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-8 as being $16,737.30. Further, by signing PoC-8 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Suzanne Dickson falsely represented the total 

amount of Debt-8 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF AMODIO

53. On October 10, 2019, acting on behalf of M-Bank, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-2, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-9”) in Amodio’s bankruptcy case in connection 

with the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between M-Bank and Amodio, 

involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-9”). Amodio defaulted on Debt-9 prior to the filing of 

PoC-9. PoC-9 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s employee, David Lamb, who, 

when signing PoC-9, was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with 

Resurgent. PoC-9 is a representation, means, and/or communication in connection with the 

collection of Debt-9. PoC-9 falsely represents Debt-9 as being comprised entirely of principal, as 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 13 of 36
PAGE | 14 of 36

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

well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-9 as $2,356.23. By signing PoC-9 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the principal 

portion of Debt-9 as being $2,356.23. Further, by signing PoC-9 under penalty of perjury and on 

behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of Debt-9 as being only 

principal and containing no interest or fees. 

54. On December 26, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms 

of PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-10”) in Amodio’s bankruptcy case in connection 

with the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between General Electric Capital 

Corporation, as the original creditor of the debt, and Amodio, involving an unsecure line of credit 

(“Debt-10”). Prior to the filing of PoC-10, but after Amodio had defaulted on Debt-10, all rights, 

title, and interest in Debt-10 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-10 was signed under penalty of 

perjury by Resurgent’s employee, William Andrews, who, when signing PoC-10, was acting 

within the course and scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-10 is a representation, 

means, and/or communication in connection with the collection of Debt-10. PoC-10 falsely 

represents Debt-10 as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the 

principal portion of Debt-10 as $5,837.71. By signing PoC-10 under penalty of perjury and on 

behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-10 as 

being $5,837.71. Further, by signing PoC-10 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, 

William Andrews falsely represented the total amount of Debt-10 as being only principal and 

containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF VILCINA

55. On July 3, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of PoA1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-11”) in Vilcina’s bankruptcy case in connection with 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 14 of 36
PAGE | 15 of 36

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

the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between Household Bank (SB), N.A., as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Vilcina, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-11”). Prior 

to the filing of PoC-11, but after Vilcina had defaulted on Debt-11, all rights, title, and interest in 

Debt-11 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-11 was signed under penalty of perjury by 

Resurgent’s employee, Leoann Shannon, who, when signing PoC-11, was acting within the course 

and scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-11 is a representation, means, and/or 

communication in connection with the collection of Debt-11. PoC-11 falsely represents Debt-11

as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt11 as $2,668.27. By signing PoC-11 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Leoann 

Shannon falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-11 as being $2,668.27. Further, by 

signing PoC-11 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Leoann Shannon falsely 

represented the total amount of Debt-11 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees.

56. On July 08, 2019, acting on behalf of Pinnacle, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-4, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-15”) in Vilcina’s bankruptcy case in connection 

with the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between Verizon Wireless, as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Vilcina, involving telecommunication services (“Debt-15”). 

Prior to the filing of PoC-15, but after Vilcina had defaulted on Debt-15, all rights, title, and 

interest in Debt-15 had been purchased by Pinnacle. PoC-15 was signed under penalty of perjury 

by Resurgent’s employee, William Andrews, who, when signing PoC-15, was acting within the 

course and scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-15 is a representation, means, 

and/or communication in connection with the collection of Debt-15. PoC-15 falsely represents 

Debt-15 as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion 

of Debt-15 as $1,472.43. By signing PoC-15 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 15 of 36
PAGE | 16 of 36

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

William Andrews falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-15 as being $1,472.43. Further, 

by signing PoC-15 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely 

represented the total amount of Debt-15 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF FONTANEZ

57. On August 29, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-12”) in Fontanez’ bankruptcy case in connection 

with the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., as 

the original creditor of the debt, and Fontanez, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-12”). 

Prior to the filing of PoC-12, but after Fontanez had defaulted on Debt-12, all rights, title, and 

interest in Debt-12 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-12 was signed under penalty of perjury by 

Resurgent’s employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-12, was acting within the course and 

scope of his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-12 is a representation, means, and/or 

communication in connection with the collection of Debt-12. PoC-12 falsely represents Debt-12

as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt12 as $354.20. By signing PoC-12 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David 

Lamb falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-12 as being $354.20. Further, by signing 

PoC-12 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the 

total amount of Debt-12 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

58. On August 29, 2019, acting on behalf of PYOD, and consistent with the terms of 

PoA-3, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-16”) in Fontanez’ bankruptcy case in connection 

with the collection of a debt originating from a transaction between CitiBank, as the original 

creditor of the debt, and Fontanez, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-16”). Prior to the 

filing of PoC-16, but after Fontanez had defaulted on Debt-16, all rights, title, and interest in DebtCase 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 16 of 36
PAGE | 17 of 36

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

16 had been purchased by PYOD. PoC-16 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, David Lamb, who, when signing PoC-16, was acting within the course and scope of his 

or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-16 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

connection with the collection of Debt-16. PoC-16 falsely represents Debt-16 as being comprised 

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-16 as $410.92. By 

signing PoC-16 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-16 as being $410.92. Further, by signing PoC-16 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the total amount of 

Debt-16 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF JONES

59. On July 24, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of PoA1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-13”) in Jones’s bankruptcy case in connection with the 

collection of a debt originating from a transaction between HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Jones, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-13”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-13, but after Jones had defaulted on Debt-13, all rights, title, and interest in Debt13 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-13 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, Susan Gaines, who, when signing PoC-13, was acting within the course and scope of 

his or her employment with Resurgent. PoC-13 is a representation, means, and/or communication 

in connection with the collection of Debt-13. PoC-13 falsely represents Debt-13 as being 

comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-13 as 

$727.74. By signing PoC-13 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines 

falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-13 as being $727.74. Further, by signing PoC-13

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 17 of 36
PAGE | 18 of 36

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

under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines falsely represented the total 

amount of Debt-13 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF DAY

60. On June 18, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of PoA1, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-14”) in Day’s bankruptcy case in connection with the 

collection of a debt originating from a transaction between original, as the original creditor of the 

debt, and Day, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-14”). Prior to the filing of PoC-14, but 

after Day had defaulted on Debt-14, all rights, title, and interest in Debt-14 had been purchased by 

LVNV. PoC-14 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s employee, Susan Gaines, who, 

when signing PoC-14, was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with 

Resurgent. PoC-14 is a representation, means, and/or communication in connection with the 

collection of Debt-14. PoC-14 falsely represents Debt-14 as being comprised entirely of principal, 

as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-14 as $692.97. By signing PoC-14 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines falsely represented the principal 

portion of Debt-14 as being $692.97. Further, by signing PoC-14 under penalty of perjury and on 

behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines falsely represented the total amount of Debt-14 as being only 

principal and containing no interest or fees.

EXHIBITS

61. Attached as Composite Exhibit “A” is a copy of the PoAs.

62. Attached as Composite Exhibit “B” is a copy of PoC-1 through PoC-16.

ARTICLE III STANDING

63. “Under settled precedent, the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing 

consists of three elements: the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, the defendant must 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 18 of 36
PAGE | 19 of 36

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

have caused that injury, and a favorable decision must be likely to redress it. The party invoking 

the jurisdiction of a federal court bears the burden of establishing these elements to the extent 

required at each stage of the litigation.” Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 964 F.3d 990, *7 (11th 

Cir. 2020) (citing and quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 

Simplified, Article III standing has three leading components: (1) injury in fact; (2) causation; and 

(3) redressability. 

64. “The ‘foremost’ standing requirement is injury in fact.” Trichell at *8 (emphasis 

added) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998)). 

65. “An injury in fact consists of ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is 

both ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” 

Trichell at *8 (emphasis added) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. 555 at 560). Simplified, injury in fact

has four components: an (1) actual or imminent, and not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) invasion 

of a legally protected interest (3) that is concreate and (4) particularized. See Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. 

1540 at 1548 (“To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion 

of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical.’” (quoting Lujan, 504 U. S. 555 at 560)); see also Cooper v. Atl. Credit 

& Fin., No. 19-12177, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23719, at *8 (11th Cir. July 28, 2020) (“To establish 

standing, a plaintiff must instead ‘show that the violation harmed ... the underlying concrete 

interest that Congress sought to protect.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Casillas v. Madison Ave. 

Assocs., 926 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2019)).

66. “To be particularized, the injury ‘must affect the plaintiff in a personal and 

individual way.’ [quoting Lujan, 504 U. S. 555 at 560 n.1]. In other words, ‘the injury in fact test 

requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 19 of 36
PAGE | 20 of 36

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

himself among the injured.’ [quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972)]. The 

same principle holds true when the plaintiff invokes a statutory cause of action: ‘where a statute 

confers new legal rights on a person, that person will have Article III standing to sue where the 

facts establish a concrete, particularized, and personal injury to that person as a result of the 

violation of the newly created legal rights.’” Trichell at *17 (emphasis added) (quoting Palm Beach 

Golf Center-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, D.D.S., P.A., 781 F.3d 1245, 1251 (11th Cir. 2015)).

67. “A ‘concrete’ injury must be ‘de facto’ – that is, it must be ‘real, and not abstract.’” 

Trichell at *8 (emphasis added) (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016)). 

“As a general matter, tangible injuries qualify as concrete.” Trichell at *8 (quoting Spokeo, 136 

S. Ct. 1540 at 1549). Allegations of either having “made any payments in response to” a 

challenged collection letter “or even ... wasted time or money in determining whether to do so” 

are tangible and otherwise concrete injuries. Trichell at *8 (emphasis added). 

SCOPE OF TRICHELL

68. In Trichell, the Eleventh Circuit pointedly grappled the injury in fact component of 

Article III standing – and in particular – whether the intangible injuries alleged by the plaintiffs 

were capable of satiating the overarching injury in fact requirement. The Trichell court observed 

the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs as intangible because, although claiming to have received

misleading and unfair collection letters that violated their rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e 

(generally prohibiting misleading communications in connection with the collection of a consumer 

debt) and § 1692f (generally prohibiting unfair communications in connection with the collection 

of a consumer debt), neither plaintiff alleged to have been misled or otherwise unfairly mislead 

by their respective collection letter. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 20 of 36
PAGE | 21 of 36

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

69. Without allegations indicating that the plaintiffs themselves were misled, and 

because the specific section of the FDCPA advanced by the plaintiffs only prohibited misleading 

communications, any ability to satiate Article III standing by the plaintiffs quickly crumbled. Put 

differently, because the plaintiffs’ claim was that the underlying collection letters were misleading 

and/or otherwise unfair, in light of the fact that neither plaintiff alleged to have been misled

themselves: [1] there was no palpable actual injury, but instead, merely the risk of an imminent 

injury, of which the court found insufficiently imminent, and [2] there was no sufficiently concrete 

or particularized injury because the plaintiffs did not allege more than an injury to a cognizable 

interest (i.e., the plaintiffs only alleged the collection letters could unlawfully mislead the least 

sophisticated consumer, and not that the plaintiffs themselves were unlawfully mislead). 

70. Simply put, Trichell confirms that, to the extent a plaintiff is seeking to enforce an 

invasion of a statutorily created interest (e.g., § 1692e of the FDCPA which generally prohibits 

misleading communications in connection with the collection of a debt from a debt collectors), a 

plaintiff cannot manifest the necessary injury in fact unless the plaintiff alleges a concrete, 

particularized, and personal injury caused by the violation of said statutorily created right. 

71. With respect to Plaintiffs and the immediate action, Trichell affords some utility to 

the analysis of whether Plaintiffs have sustained and alleged the necessary injury in fact. In large, 

however, Trichell is of limited application, as the focus of Trichell was the sufficiency of the 

intangible injury alleged by the plaintiffs. 

72. Unlike Trichell, the claims of Plaintiffs are not ones based on misleading 

communications, but rather, Plaintiffs claims are perched on the false and otherwise public

representations made by Defendants with respect to debts Defendants sought to collect. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 21 of 36
PAGE | 22 of 36

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

73. As set forth in more detail below, (Count 1) Resurgent violated § 1692e(2)(A) of 

the FDCPA, (Count 2) Resurgent and LVNV violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing false 

proofs of claim in each of the Plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding, (Count 3) Resurgent and MBank violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing false proofs of claim in the bankruptcy 

proceeding of Titus and Amodio, (Count 4) Resurgent and PYOD violated § 559.72(9) of the 

FCCPA by filing a false proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of Fontanez, (Count 5) 

Resurgent and Pinnacle violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA by filing a false proof of claim in the 

bankruptcy proceeding of Vilcina, (Count 6) LVNV violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by 

relaying false information to Resurgent that affecting the reputation of each of the Plaintiffs, 

(Count 7) M-Bank violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent 

that affecting the reputation of Titus and Amodio, (Count 8) PYOD violated § 559.72(5) of the 

FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent that affecting the reputation of Fontanez, and 

(Count 9) Pinnacle violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent 

that affecting the reputation of Vilcina.

74. In light of Plaintiffs claims and, again, unlike the plaintiffs of Trichell, Plaintiffs 

have sustained tangible injuries the likes of which are objectively concrete, as Defendants 

unlawful conduct has both wasted each of the Plaintiffs time, and more pointedly, harmed the 

reputation of each respective Plaintiff. See Trichell at *8 (exemplifying allegations of either having 

“made any payments in response to” a challenged collection letter “or even ... wasted time or 

money in determining whether to do so” as tangible and otherwise concrete injuries for purposes 

of Article III standing). 

75. Further, as alleged below, because Defendants’ violation of § 1692e(2)(A) of the 

FDCPA and §§ 559.72(5) and (9) of the FCCPA caused tangible harm to Plaintiffs, it is without 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 22 of 36
PAGE | 23 of 36

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

question that Plaintiffs’ actual injuries are sufficiently particularized. Thus, Plaintiffs have

sufficiently established the injury in fact component of Article III standing, leaving only causation 

and redressability – the likes of which are equally satisfied, as a decision in Plaintiffs’ favor will 

afford Plaintiffs both the actual and statutory damages sought herein and, but for the false proofs 

of claim, as well as the relaying of false information affecting Plaintiffs’ reputation, Plaintiffs

would not have sustained the complained of concrete injuries.

COUNT 1.

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)

(against Resurgent)

76. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

77. Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits the use of “false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. §1692e. The 

sixteen subsections of § 1692e set forth a non-exhaustive list of practices that fall within this ban, 

including, but not limited to: “[t]he false representation of the character, amount, or legal status 

of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2)(A). (emphasis added).

78. Resurgent violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by and through of the false proofs of 

claim – i.e., PoC-1, PoC-2, PoC-3, PoC-4, PoC-5, PoC-6, PoC-7, PoC-8, PoC-9, PoC-10, PoC-11, 

PoC-12, PoC-13, PoC-14, PoC-15, and PoC-16 (collectively, the “Proofs of Claim”). 

79. In short, each of the Proofs of Claim falsely represent both the character and 

amount of the underlying consumer debt Defendants sought to collect from one of the Plaintiffs. 

Resurgent’s false characterization of each of the Consumer Debts constitutes an injurious withhold 

of information that the FDCPA required Resurgent to disclose to Plaintiffs, as well as an invasion 

of Plaintiffs’ right to such information.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 23 of 36
PAGE | 24 of 36

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

80. Here, each of the Proofs of Claim falsely characterize accrued interest and fees as 

principal. In so doing, Resurgent falsely represents the underlying debt as being exclusively 

comprised of principal2and, as such, not otherwise subject to increase by way of interest or fees. 

Not only is such a portrayal of each of the Consumer Debts false, but it was a portrayal that 

Resurgent knew to be false, that is, assuming Resurgent maintains all the documents and 

information Resurgent is required to maintain to retain a valid Florida consumer collection license.

81. Further, with respect to the amount of the Consumer Debts, Resurgent falsely 

represents the principal portion of the Consumer Debts. In light of fact that each of the Consumer 

Debts are comprised of principal, interest, and fees, by falsely representing the amount stated in 

each of the Proofs of Claim as only principal, Resurgent falsely inflates the amount of the 

respective debt as a whole because the principal is only part of the overall debt.

82. Thus, Resurgent violated § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA by and through each of the 

Proofs of Claim it (Resurgent) submitted.

83. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests this Court to enter a judgment against 

Resurgent, awarding Plaintiffs the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the violative Proofs of Claim;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

2 The Oxford English Dictionary defines principal when used in the sense “[o]f money” as 

“[c]onstituting the primary or original sum; that is the main or capital sum invested or lent, and 

yielding interest or income; capital, capitalized.” Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 

1989. Further, the applicable definition of “principal” from Webster's Third New International 

Dictionary (Philip Babcock Gove Edition, 1986) is “a capital sum placed at interest, due as a debt, 

or used as a fund.” Id. at 1802.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 24 of 36
PAGE | 25 of 36

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

(e) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 2.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Resurgent and LVNV)

84. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

85. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(9) (emphasis added).

86. Here, Resurgent knew that the Consumer Debts associated with PoC-1, PoC-3, 

PoC-4, PoC-5, PoC-6, PoC-7, PoC-8, PoC-10, PoC-11, PoC-12, PoC-13, and PoC-14, were not 

entirely comprised of principal and otherwise subject to interest and fees. Despite knowing this, 

Resurgent represented Debt-1, Debt -3, Debt -4, Debt -5, Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, Debt -10, Debt

-11, Debt -12, Debt -13, and Debt -14 as being entirely principal in the respective proofs of claim

and otherwise attempted to collect said erroneous portrayal of such debts from Plaintiffs. In so 

doing, Resurgent violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA. 

87. At minimum, Resurgent acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect Debt1, Debt -3, Debt -4, Debt -5, Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, Debt -10, Debt -11, Debt -12, Debt -13, 

and Debt -14 on LVNV’s behalf. Resurgent sought to collect these respective debts from Plaintiffs

because Resurgent had contracted with LVNV for the provision of such services. LVNV 

purposely provided Resurgent with the information to collect Debt-1, Debt -3, Debt -4, Debt -5, 

Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, Debt -10, Debt -11, Debt -12, Debt -13, and Debt -14 from Plaintiffs, 

of which included Plaintiffs’ contact information, the nature of said debts, and the amounts

purportedly owed by each of the Plaintiffs. As such, Resurgent’s violation § 559.72(9) of the 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 25 of 36
PAGE | 26 of 36

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

FCCPA is the result of Resurgent’s acts and/or omissions, whereby such acts and/or omission 

occurred within the scope and course of agency between Resurgent and LVNV, and as a result, 

LVNV is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against Resurgent and LVNV, awarding Plaintiffs the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the violative proofs of claim, for a 

total of $12,000;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 3.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Resurgent and M-Bank)

89. Plaintiff Titus and Plaintiff Amodio incorporates above-paragraphs 1-75 as though 

fully stated herein.

90. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(9) (emphasis added).

91. Here, Resurgent knew that the Consumer Debts associated with PoC-2 and PoC-9 

were not entirely comprised of principal and otherwise subject to interest and fees. Despite 

knowing this, Resurgent represented Debt-2 and Debt-9 as being entirely principal in PoC-2 and 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 26 of 36
PAGE | 27 of 36

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

PoC-9 and otherwise attempted to collect said erroneous portrayal of such debts from Titus and 

Amodio. In so doing, Resurgent violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA. 

92. At minimum, Resurgent acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect Debt2 and Debt-9 on M-Bank’s behalf. Resurgent sought to collect these respective debts from Titus 

and Amodio because Resurgent had contracted with M-Bank for the provision of such services. 

M-Bank purposely provided Resurgent with the information to collect Debt-2 and Debt-9 from 

Titus and Amodio, of which included the contact information of Titus and Amodio, the nature of 

Debt-2 and Debt-9, and the amounts purportedly owed Titus and Amodio. As such, Resurgent’s 

violation § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA is the result of Resurgent’s acts and/or omissions, whereby 

such acts and/or omission occurred within the scope and course of agency between Resurgent and 

M-Bank, and as a result, M-Bank is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

93. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Titus and Plaintiff Amodio request this Court to enter a 

judgment against Resurgent and M-Bank, awarding Titus and Amodio the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the violative proofs of claim, for a 

total of $2,000;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 4.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Resurgent and PYOD)

94. Plaintiff Fontanez incorporates paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 27 of 36
PAGE | 28 of 36

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

95. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(9) (emphasis added).

96. Here, Resurgent knew that the debt associated with PoC-16 was not entirely 

comprised of principal and otherwise subject to interest and fees. Despite knowing this, Resurgent 

represented Debt-16 as being entirely principal in PoC-16 and otherwise attempted to collect said 

erroneous portrayal of Debt-16 from Fontanez. In so doing, Resurgent violated § 559.72(9) of the 

FCCPA. 

97. At minimum, Resurgent acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect Debt16 on PYOD’s behalf. Resurgent sought to collect Debt-16 from Fontanez because Resurgent had 

contracted with PYOD for the provision of such services. PYOD purposely provided Resurgent 

with the information to collect Debt-16 from Fontanez, of which included the contact information 

of Fontanez, the nature of Debt-16, and the amount purportedly owed by Fontanez. As such, 

Resurgent’s violation § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA is the result of Resurgent’s acts and/or omissions, 

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

Resurgent and PYOD, and as a result, PYOD is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

98. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Fontanez requests this Court to enter a judgment against 

Resurgent and PYOD, awarding Fontanez the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the violative proof of claim;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 28 of 36
PAGE | 29 of 36

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

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 5.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Resurgent and Pinnacle)

99. Plaintiff Vilcina incorporates paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

100. Pursuant to § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not 

legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right 

does not exist.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(9) (emphasis added).

101. Here, Resurgent knew that the debt associated with PoC-15 was not entirely 

comprised of principal and otherwise subject to interest and fees. Despite knowing this, Resurgent 

represented Debt-15 as being entirely principal in PoC-15 and otherwise attempted to collect said 

erroneous portrayal of Debt-15 from Vilcina. In so doing, Resurgent violated § 559.72(9) of the 

FCCPA. 

102. At minimum, Resurgent acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect Debt15 on Pinnacle’s behalf. Resurgent sought to collect Debt-15 from Vilcina because Resurgent had 

contracted with Pinnacle for the provision of such services. Pinnacle purposely provided Resurgent 

with the information to collect Debt-15 from Vilcina, of which included the contact information 

of Vilcina, the nature of Debt-15, and the amount purportedly owed by Vilcina. As such, 

Resurgent’s violation § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA is the result of Resurgent’s acts and/or omissions, 

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

Resurgent and Pinnacle, and as a result, Pinnacle is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 29 of 36
PAGE | 30 of 36

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

103. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Vilcina requests this Court to enter a judgment against 

Resurgent and PYOD, awarding Fontanez the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the violative proof of claim;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 6

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against LVNV)

104. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

105. Pursuant to § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[d]isclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the 

debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that 

the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the 

information is false.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(5) (emphasis added).

106. As stated above, in referring and/or assigning the collection Debt-1, Debt -3, Debt 

-4, Debt -5, Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, Debt -10, Debt -11, Debt -12, Debt -13, and Debt -14 to 

Resurgent, LVNV disclosed to Resurgent false information about the respective Plaintiffs and/or 

information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected the 

reputations of the respective Plaintiffs. By and through the Disclosures of LVNV, for example, 

LVNV falsely disclosed to Resurgent that the debts allegedly owed by the respective Plaintiffs to 

LVNV (i.e., Debt-1, Debt -3, Debt -4, Debt -5, Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, Debt -10, Debt -11, Debt 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 30 of 36
PAGE | 31 of 36

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

-12, Debt -13, and Debt -14) were comprised entirely of principal, and in so doing, otherwise 

falsely represented the amount and character of each such debt owed by the respective Plaintiff. 

107. The Disclosures of LVNV affected the reputations of the respective Plaintiffs

regarding the repayment of debts, Plaintiffs’ reputations of truthfulness, Plaintiffs’ reputations of 

solvency, and Plaintiffs’ reputations regarding trustworthiness. 

108. Thus, by disclosing to Resurgent false information regarding the debts allegedly 

owed by the Plaintiffs (i.e., collect Debt-1, Debt -3, Debt -4, Debt -5, Debt -6, Debt -7, Debt -8, 

Debt -10, Debt -11, Debt -12, Debt -13, and Debt -14), LVNV violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

109. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, respectfully, requests this Court to enter a judgment 

against LVNV, awarding Plaintiffs the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the debts LVNV falsely disclosed 

to Resurgent, for a total of $12,000;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 7

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against M-Bank)

110. Plaintiff Titus and Plaintiff Amodio incorporates above-paragraphs 1-75 as though

fully stated herein.

111. Pursuant to § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[d]isclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 31 of 36
PAGE | 32 of 36

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

debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that 

the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the 

information is false.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(5) (emphasis added).

112. As stated above, in referring and/or assigning the collection of each of the 

Consumer Debts to Resurgent, M-Bank disclosed to Resurgent false information about Titus and 

Amodio and/or information that Resurgent had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which 

affected the reputations of Titus and Amodio. By and through the Disclosures of M-Bank, for 

example, M-Bank falsely disclosed to Resurgent that the debts allegedly owed by the Titus and 

Amodio to M-Bank (i.e., collect Debt-2 and Debt-9) were comprised entirely of principal, and in 

so doing, otherwise falsely represented the amount and character of each such debts owed by Titus 

and Amodio. 

113. The Disclosures of M-Bank affected the reputations of Titus and Amodio, each,

regarding the repayment of debts, Titus and Amodio’s reputations of truthfulness, Titus and 

Amodio’s reputations of solvency, and Titus and Amodio’s reputations regarding trustworthiness. 

114. Thus, by disclosing false information to Resurgent regarding Debt-2 and Debt-9, 

M-Bank violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

115. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Titus and Plaintiff Amodio request this Court to enter a 

judgment against M-Bank, awarding Titus Amodio the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages for each of the debts M-Bank falsely disclosed 

to Resurgent, for a total of $2,000;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 32 of 36
PAGE | 33 of 36

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

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 8

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against PYOD)

116. Plaintiff Fontanez incorporates paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

117. Pursuant to § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[d]isclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the 

debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that 

the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the 

information is false.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(5) (emphasis added).

118. As stated above, in referring and/or assigning the collection Debt-16 to Resurgent, 

PYOD disclosed to Resurgent false information about Fontanez and/or information that Resurgent 

had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected the reputations Fontanez. By and 

through the Disclosures of PYOD, for example, PYOD falsely disclosed to Resurgent that the debt 

allegedly owed Fontanez to PYOD (i.e., Debt-16) was comprised entirely of principal, and in so 

doing, otherwise falsely represented the amount and character of the debt purportedly owed by 

Fontanez. 

119. The Disclosures of PYOD affected the reputation of Fontanez regarding the 

repayment of debts, Fontanez’s reputation of truthfulness, Fontanez’s reputation of solvency, and 

Fontanez’s reputation regarding trustworthiness. 

120. Thus, by disclosing false information to Resurgent regarding Debt-16, PYOD

violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 33 of 36
PAGE | 34 of 36

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

121. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Fontanez requests this Court to enter a judgment against 

PYOD, awarding Fontanez the following relief: 

(a) $1,000 in statutory damages;

(b) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(c) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(e) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

(g) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 9

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against Pinnacle)

122. Plaintiff Vilcina incorporates paragraphs 1-75 as though fully stated herein.

123. Pursuant to § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person 

shall: “[d]isclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the 

debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that 

the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the 

information is false.” Fla Stat. § 559.72(5) (emphasis added).

124. As stated above, in referring and/or assigning the collection Debt-15 to Resurgent, 

PYOD disclosed to Resurgent false information about Vilcina and/or information that Resurgent 

had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected the reputations Vilcina. By and 

through the Disclosures of Pinnacle, for example, PYOD falsely disclosed to Resurgent that the 

debt allegedly owed Vilcina to PYOD (i.e., Debt-15) was comprised entirely of principal, and in 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 34 of 36
PAGE | 35 of 36

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

so doing, otherwise falsely represented the amount and character of the debt purportedly owed by 

Vilcina. 

125. The Disclosures of PYOD affected the reputation of Vilcina regarding the 

repayment of debts, Vilcina’s reputation of truthfulness, Vilcina’s reputation of solvency, and 

Vilcina’s reputation regarding trustworthiness. 

126. Thus, by disclosing false information to Resurgent regarding Debt-15, PYOD 

violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

127. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Vilcina requests this Court to enter a judgment against 

PYOD, awarding Vilcina the following relief: 

(g) $1,000 in statutory damages;

(h) Actual damages in an amount determined by the evidence; 

(i) The costs incurred in connection with the above-captioned action; 

(j) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

(k) An injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further collection 

activities directed at Plaintiffs that are in violation of the FCCPA; and

(l) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: October 23, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Thomas Patti .

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

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 35 of 36
PAGE | 36 of 36

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on October 23, 2020, the forgoing was electronically via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system on all counsel of record. 

 /s/ Thomas J. Patti .

THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118377

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 36 of 36