PAGE | 1 of 22

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.,

and LVNV FUNDING, LLC,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

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., and Defendant LVNV Funding, 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 following nine 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, and 0:20-cv-61430.

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 1 of 22
PAGE | 2 of 22

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.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

ALLEGATIONS

8. 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. 

9. 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. 

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

“Consumer Collection Agency.” 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 2 of 22
PAGE | 3 of 22

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

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

Collection Agency.” 

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

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

14. For the “Consumer Collection Agency” license of either that Resurgent and LVNV 

to remain valid, Resurgent and LVNV, are each 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. 

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

Resurgent and LVNV 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.” 

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

that Resurgent and LVNV 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.” 

17. Resurgent and LVNV, each, maintain all the records specified in Rule 69V180.080, Florida Administrative Code.

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

Resurgent and LVNV do maintain, are current to within one week of the current date. 

19. Each of the below-alleged twelve (12) debts (collectively, the “Consumer Debts”) 

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

respective plaintiff and corresponding original third-party creditor, whereby each transaction was 

primarily for the personal benefit of said plaintiff. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 3 of 22
PAGE | 4 of 22

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

20. 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. 

21. On January 15, 2007, LVNV conveyed a limited power of attorney (the “PoA”) 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. Thereafter, or contemporaneous 

therewith, the Consumer Debts were assigned and/or referred to Resurgent for collection under the 

terms of the PoA. 

22. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debts to Resurgent, 

LVNV disclosed to Resurgent false information about Plaintiffs and/or information that Resurgent 

had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected the reputation of Plaintiffs. For 

example, LVNV falsely disclosed to Resurgent (the “Disclosures”), 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. 

23. The Disclosures 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. 

24. By way of documents and information Defendants maintains in accordance with 

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

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

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 4 of 22
PAGE | 5 of 22

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

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

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

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

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

proofs of claim in each of the Plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding, and LVNV violated § 559.72(5) 

of the FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent that affecting the reputation of each of 

the Plaintiffs (Count III). In light of these below elaborated claims, Plaintiffs have sustained 

objectively concrete tangible injuries, as the false proofs of claim Defendants filed in each of the 

Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy cases both wasted each of the Plaintiffs time and, more pointedly, harmed 

the reputation of each respective Plaintiff.

ALLEGATIONS OF TITUS

26. On October 8, 2019, Titus filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition due to the overall 

financial state of Titus. 

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

the PoA, 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 

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 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 5 of 22
PAGE | 6 of 22

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

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. 

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

the PoA, 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 HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., as the 

original creditor of the debt, and Titus, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt-2”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-2, but after Titus had defaulted on Debt-2, all rights, title, and interest in Debt-2

had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-2 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, David Lamb, 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 $792.03. By 

signing PoC-2 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-2 as being $792.03. Further, by signing PoC-2 under 

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

Debt-2 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

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

the PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-3”) 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-3”). Prior to 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 6 of 22
PAGE | 7 of 22

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

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-3 is a representation, means, and/or communication in 

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

entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-3 as $552.66. 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 $552.66. 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. 

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

the PoA, 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 General Electric Capital 

Corporation, 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 $448.11. By signing PoC-4 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb

falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-4 as being $448.11. 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. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 7 of 22
PAGE | 8 of 22

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 OF HALL

31. On September 16, 2019, Hall filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition due to the 

overall financial state of Hall. 

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

of the PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-5”) 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-5”). Prior to the 

filing of PoC-5, but after Hall 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, 

William Andrews, 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 $455.35. By 

signing PoC-5 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-5 as being $455.35. Further, by signing PoC-5 under 

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

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

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

of the PoA, 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 Capital One Bank (USA), 

N.A., as the original creditor of the debt, and Hall, involving an unsecure line of credit (“Debt6”). 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 purchased by LVNV. PoC-6 was signed under penalty of perjury by 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 8 of 22
PAGE | 9 of 22

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

Resurgent’s employee, David Lamb, 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 $886.68. By signing PoC-6 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb

falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-6 as being $886.68. Further, by signing PoC-6

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

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

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

the PoA, 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 AmeriCredit Financial Services, 

Inc., 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 

Debt-7 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-7 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, Suzanne Dickson, 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 $16,737.30. 

By signing PoC-7 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Suzanne Dickson falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-7 as being $16,737.30. Further, by signing PoC-7 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Suzanne Dickson 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 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 9 of 22
PAGE | 10 of 22

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 OF AMODIO

35. On December 26, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms 

of the PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-8”) 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-8”). Prior to the filing of PoC-8, but after Amodio 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, William Andrews, 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 Debt8 as being comprised entirely of principal, as well as falsely represents the principal portion of 

Debt-8n as $5,837.71. By signing PoC-8 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, 

William Andrews falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-8 as being $5,837.71. Further, 

by signing PoC-8 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, William Andrews falsely 

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

ALLEGATIONS OF VILCINA

36. On July 3, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of the 

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

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-9”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-9, but after Vilcina had defaulted on Debt-9, all rights, title, and interest in Debt9 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-9 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, Leoann Shannon, who, when signing PoC-9, was acting within the course and scope of 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 10 of 22
PAGE | 11 of 22

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

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 well as falsely represents the principal portion of Debt-9 as $2,668.27. By 

signing PoC-9 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Leoann Shannon falsely 

represented the principal portion of Debt-9 as being $2,668.27. Further, by signing PoC-9 under 

penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Leoann Shannon falsely represented the total 

amount of Debt-9 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

ALLEGATIONS OF FONTANEZ

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

the PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-10”) 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-10”). 

Prior to the filing of PoC-10, but after Fontanez 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, David Lamb, 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 Debt10 as $354.20. By signing PoC-10 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David 

Lamb falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-10 as being $354.20. Further, by signing 

PoC-10 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, David Lamb falsely represented the 

total amount of Debt-10 as being only principal and containing no interest or fees. 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 11 of 22
PAGE | 12 of 22

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 OF JONES

38. On July 24, 2019, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of the 

PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-11”) 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-11”). Prior to 

the filing of PoC-11, but after Jones had defaulted on Debt-11, all rights, title, and interest in Debt11 had been purchased by LVNV. PoC-11 was signed under penalty of perjury by Resurgent’s 

employee, Susan Gaines, 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 Debt-11 as 

$727.74. By signing PoC-11 under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines 

falsely represented the principal portion of Debt-11 as being $727.74. Further, by signing PoC-11 

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

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

ALLEGATIONS OF DAY

39. On June 18, 2020, acting on behalf of LVNV, and consistent with the terms of the 

PoA, Resurgent filed a proof of claim (“PoC-12”) 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-12”). Prior to the filing of PoC-12, but 

after Day 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, Susan Gaines, who, 

when signing PoC-12, was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment with 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 12 of 22
PAGE | 13 of 22

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

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 Debt-12 as $692.97. By signing PoC-12 under 

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

portion of Debt-12 as being $692.97. Further, by signing PoC-12 under penalty of perjury and on 

behalf of Resurgent, Susan Gaines falsely represented the total amount of Debt-12 as being only 

principal and containing no interest or fees.

EXHIBITS

40. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the PoA. 

41. Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “B” is a copy of PoC-1, PoC-2, PoC-3, PoC4, PoC-5, PoC-6, PoC-7, PoC-8, PoC-9, PoC-10, PoC-11, and PoC-12.

ARTICLE III STANDING

42. “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 

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. 

43. “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)). 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 13 of 22
PAGE | 14 of 22

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

44. “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)).

45. “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 

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)).

46. “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)). 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 14 of 22
PAGE | 15 of 22

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

“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

47. 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. 

48. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 15 of 22
PAGE | 16 of 22

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

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). 

49. 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. 

50. 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. 

51. 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. As set 

forth in more detail below, Resurgent violated § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA (Count I), and both 

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

claim in each of the Plaintiffs bankruptcy proceeding, and LVNV violated § 559.72(5) of the 

FCCPA by relaying false information to Resurgent that affected the reputation of each of the 

Plaintiffs (Count III). 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 16 of 22
PAGE | 17 of 22

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

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

purposes of Article III standing). 

52. 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 

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 I.

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)

(against Resurgent)

53. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-52 as though fully stated herein.

54. 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).

55. 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, 

and PoC-12 (collectively, the “Proofs of Claim”). 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 17 of 22
PAGE | 18 of 22

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

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.

56. 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.

57. 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.

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

Proofs of Claim it (Resurgent) submitted.

59. 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; 

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 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 18 of 22
PAGE | 19 of 22

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

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

(d) Reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

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

COUNT II.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Resurgent and LVNV)

60. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-52 as though fully stated herein.

61. 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).

62. Here, Resurgent knew that the Consumer Debts were not entirely comprised of 

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

each of the Consumer Debts as being entirely principal in the Proofs of Claim and otherwise

attempted to collect said erroneous portrayal of the Consumer Debts from Plaintiffs. In so doing, 

Resurgent violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA. 

63. At minimum, Resurgent acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect the 

Consumer Debts on LVNV’s behalf. Resurgent sought to collect the Consumer Debt from 

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

purposely provided Resurgent with the information to collect the Consumer Debts from Plaintiffs, 

of which included Plaintiffs’ contact information, the nature of the Consumer Debts, and the 

amounts purportedly owed by each of the Plaintiffs. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 19 of 22
PAGE | 20 of 22

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

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

LVNV is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

64. 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;

(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 III

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(5)

(against LVNV)

65. Plaintiffs incorporates above-paragraphs 1-52 as though fully stated herein.

66. 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).

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

Consumer Debts to Resurgent, LVNV disclosed to Resurgent false information about Plaintiffs

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

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

disclosed to Resurgent that the Consumer Debts allegedly owed by the Plaintiffs to LVNV was 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 20 of 22
PAGE | 21 of 22

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

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

character of each of the Consumer Debts owed by the Plaintiffs. 

68. The Disclosures affected the reputations of the Plaintiffs’ regarding the repayment 

of debts, Plaintiffs’ reputations of truthfulness, Plaintiffs’ reputations of solvency, and Plaintiffs’ 

reputations regarding trustworthiness. 

69. Thus, by disclosing false information regarding to each the Consumer Debts

allegedly owed by the Plaintiffs to Resurgent, LVNV violated § 559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

70. 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 Consumer Debts LVNV falsely 

disclosed to Resurgent;

(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. 

DATED: August 7, 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 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 21 of 22
PAGE | 22 of 22

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 August 7, 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 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 22 of 22