UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA ANN FORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROOSEN, VARCHETTI & OLIVIER, PLLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Patricia Ford through counsel, Stephen A. Thomas, PLC, by

Stephen A. Thomas states the following claims for relief:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Ford is suing because Defendant Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier,

PLLC (RVO), as a debt collector, harassed Plaintiff Ford with the continuation of

a collection lawsuit in the 36th District Court on behalf of the Providian National

Bank after she discharged the debt in bankruptcy.

1

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 1
2. Defendant RVO persistently utilized garnishments and judgment liens to

collect on a discharge debt from Plaintiff Ford, violating Plaintiff Ford’s rights

afforded under federal law.

JURISDICTION

3. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pursuant to

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for pendent state law

claims, which are predicated upon the same facts and circumstances that give rise

to the federal causes of action.

4. This action arises out of Defendant Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC’s

repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et

seq. (“FDCPA”) by Defendant RVO and their agents in their illegal efforts to

collect a consumer debt.

5. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions

occurred here, Plaintiff Ford resides here, and Defendant RVO transacts business

here as part of their continuing debt collection activities.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Patricia Ford is a natural person who resides in the City of

Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, and is a “consumer” as that term is

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

2

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 2
7. Defendant Roosen, Varchetti & Olivier, PLLC, (RVO) is a Michigan

corporation with minimum contacts in the State of Michigan and is a “debt

collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

VENUE

8. The transactions and occurrences which give rise to this action occurred in

Wayne County.

9. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10. That Defendant RVO attempted to collect a debt in the amount of

$5,970.72, an amount which had already been discharged in bankruptcy from a

Providian National Bank debt/account.

11. That Defendant RVO received a judgment for Providian National Bank

against Plaintiff Ford on October 22, 2002 in the amount of $1,981.78.

12. On July 30, 2003, Plaintiff Ford entered into an installment agreement with

Defendant RVO to pay the $1,981.78 on the Providian National Bank account.

13. On December 11, 2003, Plaintiff Patricia Ford filed a Chapter 7

Bankruptcy Case No. 03­74205­swr and all debts listed and unlisted were

discharged as a matter of law. In Re: Michael K. MADAJ 149 F.3d 467 (6th

Cir. 1998).

3

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 3
14. In the fall of 2013, Defendant RVO contacted Plaintiff Ford by telephone

and demanded payment on the discharged debt.

15. Plaintiff Ford told Defendant RVO that she had filed bankruptcy and the

debt was discharged in her bankruptcy.

16. On January 13, 2014 Defendant RVO filed a Motion to set Aside Order for

Installment Payments as to the July 30, 2003 Order allowing installment

payments.

17. On January 17, 2014 Defendant RVO filed a Notice of Judgment Lien in

the Wayne county Register of Deeds.

18. In August of 2014 Defendant RVO made a request and writ for

garnishment for Plaintiff Ford’s Income tax refund/credit.

19. In September 2014 Defendant RVO garnished Plaintiff Ford’s 2013

Michigan tax refund.

20. In October of 2014 Defendant RVO garnished Plaintiff Ford’s Fifth Third

Bank bank account.

21. Plaintiff Ford has suffered emotional distress as a result of the violation of

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

COUNT I ­ FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.

22. Plaintiff Ford incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

4

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 4
23. At all relevant times Defendant RVO, in the ordinary course of its

business, regularly engaged in the practice of collecting debts on behalf of other

individuals or entities.

24. Plaintiff Ford is a "consumer" for purposes of the FDCPA and the account

at issue in this case is a consumer debt.

25. Defendant RVO is a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

26. Within one year immediately preceding the filing of this complaint,

Defendant RVO attempted to collect from Plaintiff Ford a financial obligation

that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a

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

Providian National Bank loan.

27. Within one year immediately preceding the filing of this complaint,

Defendant RVO and the collectors employed by Defendant RVO, and on behalf

of Defendant RVO willfully contacted Plaintiff Ford’s personal cellular telephone

numbers in an effort to collect this debt, which were at all relevant times

“communication[s]” in an attempt to collect a debt as that term is defined by 15

U.S.C. § 1692a(2).

28. Defendant RVO's foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt violated

5

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 5
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

29. The Plaintiff Ford has suffered economic, emotional, general and statutory

damages as a result of these violations of the FDCPA.

COUNT II ­ VIOLATION OF THE

MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL CODE.

30. Plaintiff Ford incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

31. Defendant RVO is a "collection agency" as that term is defined in the

Michigan Occupational Code ("MOC"), M.C.L. § 339.901(b).

32. Plaintiff Ford is a “debtor” as that term is defined in M.C.L. § 339.901(f).

33. Defendant RVO’s foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt violated

M.C.L. § 339.915.

34. Plaintiff Ford has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the

Michigan Occupational Code.

35. These violations of the Michigan Occupational Code by Defendant RVO

were willful.

COUNT III ­ VIOLATION OF THE

MICHIGAN COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.

36. Plaintiff Ford incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

6

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 6
37. Defendant RVO is a "regulated person" as that term is defined in the

Michigan Collection Practices Act ("MCPA"), at M.C.L. § 445.251.

38. Plaintiff Ford is a "consumer" as that term is defined at M.C.L. § 445.251.

39. Defendant RVO’s foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt violated

M.C.L. § 445.252.

40. Plaintiff Ford has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the

MCPA.

41. These violations of the MCPA by Defendant RVO were willful.

COUNT IV – INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON

SECLUSION.

42. Plaintiff Ford incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

43. The restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) defines intrusion upon

seclusion, "One who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of

another, or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for

invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to the reasonable

person."

44. Michigan further recognizes the Plaintiff Ford’s right to be free from

invasions of privacy, thus Defendant RVO violated Michigan state law.

7

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 7
45. The Defendant RVO intentionally intruded upon Plaintiff Ford’s right

to privacy by harassing the Plaintiff Ford with calls to her cell phone.

46. The conduct of the Defendant RVO in engaging in the illegal

collection activities resulted in multiple invasions of privacy in such a way as

would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person.

47. As a result of the intrusions and invasions, the Plaintiff Ford is entitled

to actual damages from Defendant RVO in an amount to be determined at trial.

48. All acts of Defendant RVO and its agents were committed with malice,

intent, wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, Plaintiff Ford is entitled to

punitive damages.

COUNT VI ­ INTENTIONAL (OR NEGLIGENT) INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

49. Plaintiff Ford incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

50. The acts, practices and conduct engaged in by the Defendant RVO

vis­a­vis Plaintiff Ford were so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree,

as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious,

and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

51. The foregoing conduct constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of

emotional distress under the laws of the State of Michigan.

8

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 8
52. All acts of Defendant RVO were committed with malice, intent,

wantonness, recklessness, and negligence, and as such, Defendant RVO is subject

to imposition of punitive damages.

53. Defendant RVO could reasonably foresee its conduct would cause

mental anguish and severe emotional distress to Plaintiff Ford.

54. Plaintiff Ford did indeed suffer mental anguish and severe emotional

distress including post­traumatic stress, paranoia, and depression.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Ford demands trial by jury in this action.

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff Ford requests that the Court grant her the following

relief against the Defendant RVO:

a. Actual damages.

b. Statutory damages.

c. Treble damages.

d. Punitive damages.

e. Statutory costs and attorney fees.

9

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 9
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen A. Thomas

December 18, 2014 STEPHEN A. THOMAS P43260

Attorney for Plaintiff

645 Griswold St., Suite 1360

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313­965­2265

sathomasplccmecf@aol.com

10

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 10
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF WAYNE

)

) ss

)

I, Patricia Ann Ford, having first been duly sworn and uponoath, depose and

say as follows:

1. I am a Plaintiffin this civil proceeding.

2. I have read the above-entitled civil Complaint prepared by my attorneys

and I believe that all ofthe facts contained in it are true, to the best ofmy

knowledge, information and beliefformed after reasonable inquiry.

3. I believe thatthis civil Complaint iswell grounded in factandwarranted by

existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law.

4. I believe that this civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper

purpose, such as to harass any Defendants), cause unnecessary delay to

any Defendants), or create a needless increase in the cost of litigation to

any Defendants), named in the Complaint.

5. I have filed this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes

set forth in it.

6. Each and every exhibit I have provided to my attorneys which has been

attached to thisComplaint is a true and correct copy of the original.

7. Except for clearly indicated redactions made by my attorneys where

appropriate, I have not altered, changed, modified, or fabricated these

exhibits, except that some ofthe attached exhibits may contain some of my

own handwritten notations.

I declareimderpenalty of perjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct.

Patricia Ann Ford

Subscribed and swornWbefo\e jjae this

14 dfy /^November 2014,

i Stsphsn A. Thomas. NotoryPuMe £ ftiteefMtoMoan. County*Wapw * My Commission Expires 3/30/2019

Acting Inth»County of

2:14-cv-14794-AJT-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 12/18/14 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 11