PAGE | 1 of 10

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-61412

PAMELA TITUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff Pamela Titus (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC and Defendant 

Resurgent Capital Services L.P. (collectively, the “Defendants”) for violations of 15 U.S.C §1692 

et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), and Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq., the 

Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

28 U.S.C. § 1337.

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

28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

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

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 1 of 10
PAGE | 2 of 10

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

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

www.JibraelLaw.com

PARTIES

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

County, Florida.

5. Defendant Resurgent Capital Services L.P. (“Defendant-DC”) is a Delaware 

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

6. Defendant-DC engages in interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and 

mail in a business whose principal purpose is the collection of debts.

7. At all times material, Defendant-DC was acting as a debt collector in respect to the 

collection of Plaintiff’s debts. 

8. Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC (“Defendant-Creditor”) is a Delaware limited 

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

9. At all times material, Defendant-Creditor was the creditor of the debts DefendantDC sought to collect from Plaintiff. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. This action involves the debt arising from a transaction between HSBC Bank, the 

original creditor, and Plaintiff involving an unsecured line of credit, of which was primarily for 

the personal benefit of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s family, as well as members of Plaintiff’s household 

(the “Consumer Debt”). Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

12. Defendant-DC is a debt collector governed by both the FDCPA and FCCPA. 

13. Defendant-DC is a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer 

debts for collection.

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 2 of 10
PAGE | 3 of 10

LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC

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

www.JibraelLaw.com

14. Defendant-DC is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer 

debts.

15. Defendant-DC regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts 

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

16. At all times material, Defendant-DC was acting as a debt collector in respect to the 

collection of the Consumer Debt. 

17. Defendant-DC 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. 

18. The Consumer Debt is a debt which Defendant-DC must possess a valid Consumer 

Collection Agency license to lawfully collect or attempt to collect from Plaintiff. 

19. Defendant-DC is registered with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation as a 

“Consumer Collection Agency.” 

20. Defendant-DC’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license number is CCA0900145. 

21. For Defendant-DC’s “Consumer Collection Agency” license to remain valid, 

Defendant-DC is 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. 

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

Defendant-DC 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.” 

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

Defendant-DC 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.” 

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 3 of 10
PAGE | 4 of 10

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

24. Defendant-DC maintains all the records specified in Rule 69V-180.080, Florida

Administrative Code.

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

Defendant-DC does maintain, are current to within one week of the current date. 

26. On a date better known by Defendant-Creditor, the original creditor of the 

Consumer Debt, HSBC Bank, sold all rights, title, and interest in the Consumer Debt. Prior to the 

sale of the Consumer Debt by HSBC Bank, Plaintiff defaulted on the Consumer Debt.

27. On a date better known by Defendant-Creditor, Sherman Originator, LLC, sold all 

rights, title, and interest in the Consumer Debt to Defendant-Creditor. 

28. Defendant-Creditor is the current creditor of the Consumer Debt.

29. The Consumer Debt is comprised of principal, interest, and fees, whereby the total 

amount of the Consumer Debt, pursuant to the agreement underlying the Consumer Debt, is subject 

to increase based on the principal portion of the Consumer Debt and the interest and fees which 

said principal is subject thereto. 

30. On January 15, 2007, Defendant-Creditor conveyed a limited power of attorney to 

Defendant-DC for purposes of engaging in certain collection efforts on its (Defendant-Creditor’s) 

behalf, including, but not limited to the filing of bankruptcy proof of claim. Thereafter, or 

contemporaneous therewith, the Consumer Debt was assigned and/or referred to Defendant-DC

for collection under the terms of said power of attorney. 

31. In referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debt to DefendantDC, Defendant-Creditor disclosed to Defendant-DC false information about Plaintiff and/or 

information that Defendant-DC had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which affected 

the reputation of Plaintiff. For example, Defendant-Creditor falsely disclosed to Defendant-DC 

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 4 of 10
PAGE | 5 of 10

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 “Disclosure”), among other things, that the Consumer Debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff to 

Defendant-Creditor was comprised entirely of principal, and in so doing, otherwise misrepresented 

the amount and character of the Consumer Debt owed by Plaintiff. 

32. The Disclosure affected Plaintiff’s reputation. For example, the disclosure affected 

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

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

33. By way of documents and information Defendant-DC maintains in accordance with 

Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code: [1] Defendant-DC knew the Consumer Debt was 

comprised of principal, interest, and fees; [2] Defendant-DC knew that the total amount of the 

Consumer Debt was the sum of the principal portion of the Consumer Debt and the interest and 

fees said principal amount is subject thereto; and [3] Defendant-DC knew the Consumer Debt was 

subject to increase based on the amount of the principal portion of the Consumer Debt and the 

interest and fees which said principal is subject thereto.

34. On October 8, 2019, due to Plaintiff’s overall financial situation, Plaintiff filed a 

Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. 

35. Upon learning of the filing of Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, 

Defendant-DC, acting on behalf of Defendant-Creditor, and consistent with the terms of its power 

of attorney, filed a proof of claim in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case, alleging Plaintiff owed DefendantCreditor $552.66 in principal only (the “POC”) with respect to the Consumer Debt.

36. The POC is a representation, means, and otherwise communication in connection 

with the collection of the Consumer Debt. 

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 5 of 10
PAGE | 6 of 10

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

37. The POC was signed under penalty of perjury by Defendant-DC’s employee, David 

Lamb, who, when signing the proof of claim, was acting within the course and scope of his or her

employment with Defendant-DC. 

38. By signing the POC under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Defendant-DC, 

David Lamb falsely represented the principal portion of the Consumer Debt as being $552.66. 

Further, by signing the POC under penalty of perjury and on behalf of Defendant, David Lamb

falsely represented the total amount of the Consumer Debt as being only principal and containing 

no interest or fees. 

COUNT I.

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

(against Defendant-DC)

39. Plaintiff incorporates above-paragraphs 1-38 as though fully stated herein.

40. 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).

41. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by and through the POC, in that, 

Defendant-DC falsely represented both the character and amount of the Consumer Debt to 

Plaintiff. Defendant-DC’s false characterization of the Consumer Debt constitutes an injurious 

withhold of information that the FDCPA required Defendant-DC to disclose to Plaintiff, as well 

as an invasion of Plaintiff’s right to such information.

42. Here, the POC falsely characterizes accrued interest charges and fees as principal.

In so doing, Defendant-DC causes the least sophisticated consumer to believe, for example, that

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 6 of 10
PAGE | 7 of 10

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 only principal1and, as such, not otherwise subject to increase by way of 

interest and fees. Not only is such a portrayal of the Consumer Debt false, but it was a portrayal 

which Defendant-DC knew to be false assuming Defendant-DC maintains the documents and 

information Defendant-DC is required to maintain to retain a valid consumer collection license in 

Florida. 

43. Further, with respect to the amount of the Consumer Debt, Defendant-DC falsely 

represents the principal portion of the Consumer Debt as being $552.66. In so doing, DefendantDC causes the least sophisticated consumer to believe, for example, that he or she owes DefendantCreditor an amount greater than the $552.66, because the POC falsely identifies $552.66 as only 

being principal and the total amount owed is principal plus interest and fees. 

44. Thus, by and through the POC, Defendant violated § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA.

45. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to enter a judgment against DefendantDC, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

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

(b) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k; and

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

1 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-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 7 of 10
PAGE | 8 of 10

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

COUNT II.

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Defendant-DC and Defendant-Creditor)

46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

47. 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).

48. Here, Defendant-DC knew that the Consumer Debt was not entirely comprised of 

principal and otherwise subject to interest and fees. Despite knowing this, Defendant-DC 

misrepresented the Consumer Debt as being entirely principal by and through the POC and 

otherwise attempted to collect an erroneous portrayal of the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff. In so 

doing, Defendant-DC violated § 559.72(9) of the FCCPA. 

49. At minimum, Defendant-DC acted with apparent authority in attempting to collect 

the Consumer Debt on Defendant-Creditor’s behalf. Defendant-DC sought to collect the Consumer 

Debt from Plaintiff because Defendant-DC had contracted with Defendant-Creditor for the 

provision of such services. 

50. Defendant-Creditor purposely provided Defendant-DC with the information to 

collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff, of which included Plaintiff’s contact information, the 

nature of the Consumer Debt, and the amount purportedly owed by Plaintiff. 

51. As such, the above-mentioned violation of § 559.72(9) is the result of DefendantDC’s acts and/or omissions, whereby such acts and/or omission occurred within the scope and 

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 8 of 10
PAGE | 9 of 10

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

course of agency between Defendant-DC and Defendant-Creditor, and as a result, DefendantCreditor is vicariously liable for such FCCPA violation.

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

against Defendant-DC and Defendant-Creditor, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

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

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

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

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

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

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FLA. STAT. § 559.72(9)

(against Defendant-Creditor)

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 of this Complaint as though 

fully stated herein.

54. 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).

55. As stated above, in referring and/or assigning the collection of the Consumer Debt 

to Defendant-DC, Defendant-Creditor disclosed to Defendant-DC false information about Plaintiff 

and/or information that Defendant-DC had no legitimate business need for, the likes of which 

affected the reputation of Plaintiff. By and through the Disclosure, for example, DefendantCreditor falsely disclosed to Defendant-DC that the Consumer Debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff to 

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 9 of 10
PAGE | 10 of 10

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

Defendant-Creditor was comprised entirely of principal, and in so doing, otherwise misrepresented 

the amount and character of the Consumer Debt owed by Plaintiff. 

56. The Disclosure affected Plaintiff’s reputation regarding the repayment of debts, 

Plaintiff’s reputation of truthfulness, Plaintiff’s reputation of solvency, and Plaintiff’s reputation 

regarding trustworthiness. 

57. Thus, in light of the above, by disclosing false information regarding to the 

Consumer Debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff to Defendant-DC, Defendant-Creditor violated § 

559.72(5) of the FCCPA.

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

against Defendant-Creditor, awarding Plaintiff the following relief: 

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

(b) An injunction prohibiting Defendant-Creditor from engaging in further 

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

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

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

DATED: July 13, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Jibrael S. Hindi .

JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118259

E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 118377

E-mail: tom@jibraellaw.com

THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Phone: 954-907-1136

Fax: 855-529-9540

Case 0:20-cv-61412-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2020 Page 10 of 10