1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

LISA McCRARY, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

YORBA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

a California limited liability company, and 

DAN PORTILLA, an individual, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT 

1. This action arises from Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA was 

enacted “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 

U.S.C. § 1692(e). The statute provides for civil liability for a wide range of 

abusive actions, including, but not limited to the false representation of the 

character, amount, or legal status of any debt, and the threat to take any action 

that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. “A single violation 

of the Act is sufficient to subject a debt collector to liability under the Act.” Lewis 

v. Marinosci Law Grp., P.C., 2013 WL 5789183, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2013). 

Defendant violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA and caused Plaintiff 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 13
2 

tangible injury while attempting to unlawfully extract payment from Plaintiff for 

a debt she does not owe. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

(“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). The FDCPA is a 

federal statute. 

3. Venue is proper in this judicial district because Defendant engaged 

in the complained of collection activities in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A 

civil action may be brought in— (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part 

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

of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”). 

PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff, Lisa McCrary (“Plaintiff”, is a natural person and resident 

of Panama City Beach, Florida. Panama City Beach is located in Bay County. 

5. Plaintiff, as further described herein, is a consumer as defined by 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

6. Defendant Yorba Capital Management, LLC (“Yorba”) is a 

California limited liability company whose principal office is located at 2400 E. 

Katella Avenue, Suite 800, Anaheim, California 92806, and whose registered 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 13
3 

agent for service of process is Dan Portilla, 422 S. Forest Avenue, Santa Ana, 

California 92703. 

7. Defendant Dan Portilla (“Portilla”) is an individual believed to reside 

at 422 S. Forest Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92703. Portilla is believed to be 

both an attorney as well as the effective owner of Yorba. 

8. At appropriate times herein Defendants Yorba and Portilla are 

cumulatively referred to as “Defendants.” 

9. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Yorba was the alter ego 

of Defendant Portilla, and there exists, and at all times herein mentioned has existed, 

a unity of interest and ownership between Defendants Yorba and Portillo such that 

any separateness between them has ceased to exist in that Defendant Portilla 

completely controlled, dominated, managed, and operated Defendant Yorba to suit 

his convenience. 

10. At all times material to this action, Portilla supervised and oversaw the 

day-to-day activities of Defendant Yorba. 

11. Defendants, through the use of various instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce, are engaged in a business the principal purpose of which is the 

collection of “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 13
4 

12. Defendants are “debt collectors” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); 

however, neither Defendant is now and has ever been registered with the State of 

Florida as a consumer collection agency. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

13. Approximately one month prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff 

received the first in a series of telephone calls from one or more individuals who 

refused to identify the company on whose behalf they were calling. 

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times mentioned 

herein, the acts of the unidentified callers were performed by an employee, agent, 

officer, servant and/or representative of Defendants Yorba and Portilla. 

15. Each time, the caller demanded payment in the amount of $498.57 

for an allegedly delinquent Citibank account which, according to the caller was 

more than 7 years delinquent. 

16. Plaintiff had a Citibank credit card at one time, which she used for 

personal, family, or household purposes. 

17. Citibank, the alleged original creditor in this matter, in a nationwide 

bank and major credit card issuer with hundreds of locations in the State of 

Florida. 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 13
5 

18. In Florida, the statute of limitations for a credit card debt may be as 

little as three (3) years, but in no case longer than five (5) years. Peeler v. KVH 

Industries, Inc., No. 8: 12-cv-1584-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. July 25, 2013). 

19. Plaintiff denied owing the amount demanded and requested 

information substantiating the alleged debt. Defendants refused. 

20. On or about August 18, 2020, during one of the aforementioned 

telephone calls, Plaintiff again requested information substantiating the alleged 

debt—this time providing Defendants with her email address. 

21. Defendants responded by sending Plaintiff the attached letter (on 

Defendant’s letterhead) and credit card authorization form (“Exhibit A”). At no 

time before or since has Plaintiff received any written communication from 

Defendant other than Exhibit A. 

22. The letter threatened that “Yorba Capital Management will legally 

pursue this to the fullest extent of the law to collect the balance in full, plus any 

additional costs and attorney fees,” stated that upon payment, “Our trade line with 

all 3 major credit reporting bureaus will be updated as “PAID IN FULL.” This 

statement implied that Defendants are already reporting, unlawfully, the alleged 

debt to “all 3 major credit reporting bureaus,” even though the alleged debt, by 

Defendant’s own admission, has been delinquent for more than 7 years. 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 13
6 

23. On August 28, 2020, Defendants once again called Plaintiff—this 

time threatening that if payment was not made within 30 days, “it will go bad” 

for Plaintiff and “further action will be taken.” 

24. These threats, along with the threats made in Exhibit A, compelled 

Plaintiff to go the time, effort, and cost of researching the veracity of this matter 

– only to find out the debt was not legitimately owed and that Defendant was not 

registered as a Consumer Collection Agency in the State of Florida. 

25. A person may not engage in business in the State of Florida as a 

consumer collection agency or continue to do business in the State of Florida as 

a consumer collection agency without first registering as such, and thereafter 

maintaining a valid registration. See Fla. Stat. § 559.553(1). A violation of state 

law may, as is the case here, be a violation of the FDPCA. See LeBlanc v. Unifund 

CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[C]ollection activities that 

use ‘any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means,’ . . . under state 

law, will also constitute FDCPA violations.”). 

26. Plaintiff was tangibly injured because she was deprived of the benefit 

of the State of Florida’s regulatory review and oversight of consumer collection 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 6 of 13
7 

agencies1 because Defendants chose to not register with the State of Florida and 

instead operate a criminal enterprise outside the purview of the law2. 

27. Furthermore, Defendants’ statements, threats, and omissions of law, 

as described above, incontrovertibly violate §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 

and 1692e(10) and caused Plaintiff actual injury— including, but not limited to, 

the time, effort, and cost expended investigating Defendants’ claims (only to learn 

the alleged debt was barred by the statute of limitations and Defendants were not 

legally authorized to collect any alleged debt even if it were within the statute of 

limitations), along with the anxiety and fear that normally accompanies false 

threats of legal action and damage to one’s credit standing. See Trichell v. 

Midland Credit Management, Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 997 (11th Cir. 2020) 

(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.) (emphasis added). 

1

 “The broad basis for the doctrine that contracts of certain unlicensed persons are 

unenforceable is that the courts should not lend their aid to the enforcement of 

contracts where performance would tend to deprive the public of the benefits of 

regulatory measures. Williston on Contracts, § 1765, p. 247.” Cooper v. Paris, 

413 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) 

2

 Fla. Stat. § 559.785 Criminal penalty.—It shall be a misdemeanor of the first 

degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, for any person not 

exempt from registering as provided in this part to engage in collecting consumer 

debts in this state without first registering with the office, or to register or attempt 

to register by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 7 of 13
8 

28. At no time under the circumstances described herein did Defendants 

have a legal claim against Plaintiff which can be enforced in a court of law, or 

could result in judgment, garnishment, or seizure of her assets. 

29. At the time Plaintiff was threatened with legal action, the applicable 

statute of limitations on the alleged Citibank debt was, based on Defendants’ own 

statements, expired. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 

1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10)

30. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

31. Section 1692e, generally, prohibits a debt collector from using any 

false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with the collection 

of a debt. More specifically, Section 1692e(2)(A) prohibits a debt collector from 

falsely representing of “the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.” Valle 

v. First Nat. Collection Bureau, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2017). 

32. Section 1692e(2)(A) prohibits "false representation of . . . the 

character, amount, or legal status of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(2)(A). Hepson 

v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP, No. 09-15435. Non-Argument Calendar (11th 

Cir. June 17, 2010). 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 8 of 13
9 

33. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely stating that 

Plaintiff owed a validly due and owing debt in the amount of $498.57. 

34. Section 1692e(5) prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take 

action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. LeBlanc 

v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185, 1193 (11th Cir. 2010). 

35. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by attempting to collect a 

consumer debt in the State of Florida without first obtaining and thereafter 

maintaining a valid registration. Moreover, Defendant threatened Plaintiff with 

legal action if she did not pay the alleged debt—a debt which, by Defendant’s 

own admission, was beyond any applicable statute of limitations. 

36. Section 1692e(10) prohibits “[t]he use of any false representation or 

deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information 

concerning a consumer.” Starosta v. MBNA America Bank, NA, 244 Fed. Appx. 

939 (2007). 

37. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by attempting to obtain, 

among other things, Plaintiff’s credit card number under the guise of a lawfully 

operating consumer collection agency attempting to collect a validly due and 

owing debt. 

38. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a) provides that a debt collector who fails to 

comply with any provision of the FDCPA with respect to any person is liable to 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 9 of 13
10 

such person for up to $1,000 in statutory damages, actual damages, the costs of 

the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor, and against 

Defendants Yorba and Portello, jointly and severally, for: 

a. Statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 dollars; 

b. Actual damages; 

b. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; 

c. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

Dated: September 8, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Scott D. Owens 

Scott D. Owens, Esq. 

SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 

2750 N. 29th Ave., Ste. 209A 

Hollywood, FL 33020 

Tel: 954-589-0588 

Fax: 954-337-0666 

scott@scottdowens.com 

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 11 of 13
DocuSign Envelope tO: SCSOOOOO-e2E4-4094-8338-F1 889688C606

YORBA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

2400 E. Katella Ave. Ste. 800 | Anaheim, CA 92806 | Tetephone 866-774-0777

*Personal and Confidential*

LISA MCCRARY

218 BOCA SHORES DR

PANAMA CrTY FL, 32408

RE: CITI BANK

Original Account No: 50499480l5;49fi27

File No: KL0000080934

August 18,2020

Ms. Lisa Mccrary,

On August 18,2020. Yorba Capital Management has agreed to the following settlement of

Four Hundred ninety eight Dollars and 571100 ($498.57) and must be represented in our office no later

than August 31,2020.

There is no grace period. Any payment not received in the amount or by the date referenced above will

render this offer NULL and VOID. Once the funds have cleared your bank, Yorba Capital Management,

will release you from all claims and liabilities pertaining to the above referenced account. Our trade line

with all 3 major credit reporting bureaus will be updated as "PAID IN FULL"

As part of this settlement, both parties agree to waive any and all lawsuits, Judgments. and causes of

action that have occurred against the other regarding the above listed motion.

All judgments, liens, writs of executions shall be dismissed and or otherwise withdrawn. ln the event the

above maker defaults in said agreement, Yorba Capital Management will legally pursue this to the fu1lest

extent ofthe law to collect the balance in full, plus any additional costs and attorney fees.

Sincerely,

Sam Stevens

Sr. Vice President

Yorba Capital Management, LLC

THIS COMIVIUNICATION TS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. TIIIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO

COLLECT A DEBT, AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM YOU WILL BE USED

FOR THAT PURPOSE.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 12 of 13
DocuSign Envelope lD: 5C500666-E2E4-4094-8338-F1 889688C606

YORBA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

CREDIT CARD AUTIIORIZATION LETTER

DATE: Aueust 18.2020

LISA MCCRARY

authorize Yorba Capital Management to make the

following charges to my credit card account for the indicated people and/or services:

LISA MCCRARY

Name:

File: I(L0000080934

Amount to be charged: $ 498.57

I acknowledge that there may be substantial penalties and/or no refund of the amount

Charged should I change andlor cancel.

Charge to Credit Card account:

Expiration: 

- 

CYY:-

Name on credit card:

Address to which eredit card statement is sent:

Street:

City: State: _ Zip code:

Authorization

Signature

[]Privacy Notice: This message is intended only for the use of the individual entity to which it is

addressed and may contain information that is " Privileged", Confidential, or Exempt fiom

Disclosure under applicable Federal or /state Law. lf the reader of this message is not the

intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this

communication is strictly prohibited.

Case 5:20-cv-00238-RH-MJF Document 1 Filed 09/08/20 Page 13 of 13