UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

CHRISTINA GUNTHER ) 

on behalf of herself and all ) 

others similarly situated, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Class Action 

ACCREDITED COLLECTION ) 

AGENCY, INC. ) 

 and ) 

NORMAN G. KALINA, ESQ. ) Jury Trial Demanded 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a consumer class action for damages brought on behalf of Pennsylvania 

and New Jersey consumers subjected to Defendant’s violations of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (hereafter the "FDCPA"), which prohibits debt collectors 

from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection practices. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1331, 1337. 

3. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

III. PARTIES

 4. Plaintiff Christina Gunther is an adult individual residing at 55 N. 20th Street, Apt. 

C22, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 1 of 12
5. Defendant Accredited Collection Agency, Inc. (hereafter the “ACA”) in the 

business of collecting debts in this Commonwealth with its principal place of business located at 

76 North Maple Avenue, Suite 141, Ridgewood, NJ 07450. The principal purpose of Defendant 

is the collection of debts using the mails and telephone, and Defendant regularly attempts to 

collect debts alleged to be due another. 

6. Defendant Norman G. Kalina, Esq. (“Kalina”) is an attorney engaged in the 

business of collecting debts in this Commonwealth with his principal place of business located at 

76 North Maple Avenue, Suite 141, Ridgewood, NJ 07450. At all times pertinent hereto, 

Defendant Kalina used the instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the 

principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, or regularly collected or attempted to 

collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant Kalina was ostensibly hired by Defendant 

ACA to collect a debt relating to consumer loans that were allegedly originally owed to Cash 

Today. 

8. The alleged debt at issue arose out of transactions which were primarily for 

personal, family or household purposes. 

9. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant ACA used the name of Defendant Kalina 

in the process of collecting or attempting to collect money from the Plaintiff. 

10. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant Kalina purported to be an attorney that 

was hired by ACA to collect debts relating to consumer debts that are allegedly in default. 

2

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 2 of 12
11. On or about Sepember 14, 2003, Defendants contacted the Plaintiff in an attempt 

to coerce payment of the debt. During the conversation, Defendants threatened to garnish 

Plaintiff’s wages. 

12. On or about September 29, 2003, Defendant Kalina wrote and sent to Plaintiff by 

U.S. mail a collection or “dunning” letter (the “9/29/03 Letter I”) which attempted to coerce 

Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt. Additionally, the 9/29/03 Letter I, inter alia, stated the 

following: 

Please be advised that this office represents the above named client in connection 

with an outstanding bill in the amount of $605.00. Your account was placed with 

Accredited Collection Agency, and after numerous attempts, this account is still 

delinquent, which we trust is merely an oversight on your part. 

The 9/29/03 Letter I included the following, which was unsigned by Defendant Kalina: 

Yours very truly, 

Norman G. Kalina, Esq. 

 

BY: Norman G. Kalina, Esq. 

The 9/29/03 Letter I, inter alia, stated the following: “We are debt collectors. This letter is an 

attempt to collect a debt, and any information will be used for that purpose.” A true and correct 

copy of the 9/29/03 Letter I is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. 

13. On or about September 29, 2003, Defendant Kalina wrote and sent to Plaintiff by 

U.S. mail a second collection or “dunning” letter (the “9/29/03 Letter II”) which attempted to 

coerce Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt. Additionally, the 9/29/03 Letter II, inter alia, stated 

the following: 

Please be advised that this office represents the above named client in connection 

with an outstanding bill in the amount of $235.00. Your account was placed with 

Accredited Collection Agency, and after numerous attempts, this account is still 

delinquent, which we trust is merely an oversight on your part. 

3

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 3 of 12
The 9/29/03 Letter II included the following, which was unsigned by Defendant Kalina: 

Yours very truly, 

Norman G. Kalina, Esq. 

 

BY: Norman G. Kalina, Esq. 

The 9/29/03 Letter II, inter alia, stated the following: “We are debt collectors. This letter is an 

attempt to collect a debt, and any information will be used for that purpose.” A true and correct 

copy of the 9/29/03 Letter II is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein. The 

9/29/03 Letter I and the 9/29/03 Letter II hereafter shall be referred to collectively as the 

“Letters.” 

14. At all pertinent times, the Letters were the initial communications to Plaintiff 

from Defendants in connection with the debt described therein. Additionally, Defendant Kalina 

did not send any written communications to Plaintiff with respect to the alleged debt within five 

days after the above initial communication.

15. On or about October 7, 2003, an agent, servant and/or employee from the 

Defendants identifying himself as “Sheldon Brooks” contacted the Plaintiff at her place of 

employment in an attempt to coerce payment of the debt. During the conversation, Plaintiff 

informed Mr. Brooks that Defendants were not to call her at her place of employment, as such 

calls were inconvenient to her and that her employer did not permit such calls at her place of 

employment. Mr. Brooks responded by continuing to speak to Plaintiff, stating she was “ignoring 

the problem,” and threatening to garnish her wages. Notwithstanding the above, Mr. Brooks 

immediately contacted Plaintiff two successive times, stating, on each occasion, to Plaintiff, “Hi 

this is Sheldon Brooks representing County Bank. I would like to speak to the supervisor of 

Christina Gunther about garnishing her wages on a debt she owes my client.” On each occasion, 

4

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 4 of 12
Plaintiff told Mr. Brooks that Defendants were not to call her at her place of employment, as 

such calls were inconvenient to her and that her employer did not permit such calls at her place 

of employment. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Brooks immediately contacted Plaintiff at her place of 

residence for the fourth time, threatening to contact Plaintiff’s co-workers announcing himself in 

the same manner he had during the second phone call. He stated to Plaintiff that such a statement 

would let her co-workers know that “you don’t pay your bills and you owe money.” Plaintiff 

again told Mr. Brooks that he and Defendants were not to contact her at her place of employment 

because her employer did not permit such calls, and that such calls were inconvenient. 

Notwithstanding this, Mr. Brooks immediately contacted Plaintiff, for the fifth time, at her place 

of employment. During the conversation, Mr. Brooks again threatened to contact Plaintiff’s coworkers with an announcement similar to the statement made during the above second and third 

phone calls to Plaintiff. Plaintiff then spoke to Mr. Brooks’ supervisor, Jessica Kolby, stating to 

her that Defendants were not call to her at her place of employment, as such calls were 

inconvenient to her and that her employer did not permit such calls at her place of employment. 

16. Notwithstanding the above, on or about October 17, 2003, Ms. Kolby contacted 

Plaintiff at her place of employment in an attempt to coerce payment of the debt. 

17. Notwithstanding the above, on or about December 10, 2003, an agent, servant 

and/or employee from the Defendants identifying herself as “Susan King” contacted the Plaintiff 

at her place of employment in an attempt to coerce payment of the debt. During the conversation, 

Plaintiff asked Ms. King if she knew that Plaintiff had repeatedly informed Defendants that 

Defendants were not to call her at her place of employment, as such calls were inconvenient to 

her and that her employer did not permit such calls at her place of employment, to this Ms. King 

replied in the affirmative and continued to speak to the Plaintiff.

5

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 5 of 12
 18. The least sophisticated consumer would interpret the communications contained 

in the Letters as being issued, authorized or approved by an attorney after review of the 

consumer’s account. 

19. At all pertinent times hereto, the Letters were the only communication, written or 

otherwise, made to Plaintiff by Defendants in connection with the debt described therein. In 

violation of section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA, the Letters did not advise Plaintiff that she had a 

right to dispute the validity of the alleged debt and that Defendants would provide verification of 

the alleged debt if the Plaintiff disputed the validity of the alleged debt and/or requested 

verification of the debt. 

20. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant Kalina purported to be a lawyer and/or a 

law firm that was hired by ACA to collect debts relating to consumer accounts allegedly in 

default. However, on information and belief, no lawyer(s) participated in reviewing Plaintiff’s 

file or the Letters prior to their dissemination. 

21. Additionally, contrary to the letterhead set forth at the top of the Letters, 

Defendant Kalina does not maintain a principal office at 76 North Maple Avenue, Suite 141, 

Ridgewood, NJ 07450. Rather, the address and telephone number reflected on the letterhead and 

represented as belonging to Defendant Kalina are instead an address and telephone number of 

Defendant ACA. Thus, the Letter effectively required the consumer to deal with or seek 

verification of the alleged debt through Defendant ACA directly instead of Defendant Kalina. 

22. On information and belief, at all pertinent times hereto, Defendants acted in a 

false, deceptive and unethical manner when they designed, compiled and furnished the Letter 

knowing that it would be used to create the false belief in consumers that an established law firm

6

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 6 of 12
and lawyer were participating in the collection of a debt when in fact no such law firm or lawyer 

was so participating. 

23. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant ACA was acting by and through 

Defendant Kalina who was acting within the scope and course of his employment, with the 

consent of and under the supervision and control of Defendant ACA. 

24. Defendant Kalina received a financial benefit from his actions in connection with 

services rendered to ACA. 

25. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents, 

servants and/or employees, who were acting within the scope and course of their employment, 

and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendants herein. 

26. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendants, as well as their agents, 

servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent and in wanton 

disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiff herein. 

27. The Defendants knew or should have known that their actions violated the 

FDCPA. Additionally, the Defendants could have taken the steps necessary to bring their actions 

within compliance with the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review their 

actions to insure compliance with said law. 

28. As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained actual damages, 

including, but not limited to, injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, damage to Plaintiff’s credit, out-ofpocket expenses, physical, emotional and mental pain and anguish and pecuniary loss and 

Plaintiff will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, all to Plaintiff’s great 

detriment and loss. 

7

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 7 of 12
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

29. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action, pursuant to 

Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Class: 

All persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey to whom, during 

the one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendants sent the Letters or other 

communications substantially in the form of the Letters in an attempt to collect a non-business 

debt, which letters were not returned as undeliverable by the Postal Service. 

30. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon 

information and belief, Defendants continually sent out hundreds if not thousands of dunning 

letters virtually identical to the Letters to consumers throughout the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. Thus, although the precise number of Class members 

is known only to the Defendants, Defendants regularly collect or attempt to collect consumer 

debt in the Commonwealth and the State. Because the collection letters are standard form letters 

sent to consumers, numerosity may be presumed. 

31. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over 

any questions affecting only individual Class members. The principal question is whether 

Defendants violated the FDCPA by mailing the Letters or written communications substantially 

in the form of the Letters to the consumers during the applicable time period. 

32. Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims of the Class, which all arise from the 

same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories. 

33. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff is 

committed to vigorously litigating this matter and has retained counsel experienced in handling 

8

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 8 of 12
class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel 

have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim.

34. This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of 

separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or 

varying adjudications with respect to individual members which would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Class, as well as a risk of adjudications with 

respect to individual members which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of

other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to 

protect their interests. 

35. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with 

respect to the Class as a whole. 

36. Whether a Class member was sent the offending Letters or written 

communications substantially in the form of the Letters can be determined by ministerial 

inspection of Defendants’ records. 

37. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this 

controversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of 

separate claims against Defendants is small because the maximum statutory damages in an 

individual action under the FDCPA is up to $1,000. Management of the Class claims is likely to 

present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class claims. The identities 

of the Class members may be obtained from Defendants’ records. 

9

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 9 of 12
VI. CLAIM FOR RELIEF-VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA

38. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth 

at length herein. 

39. Defendants are “debt collectors” as defined by section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA. 

40. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by section 1692a(3) of the FDCPA. 

41. The Letters sent to the Plaintiff by Defendants are “communications” relating to a 

“debt” as defined by sections 1692a(2) and 1692a(5) of the FDCPA. 

42. Defendants violated the FDCPA. Defendants’ violations include, but are not 

limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(3), 1692e(9), 1692e(10), 1692e(14), 1692f, 

1692g(a) and 1692j as evidenced by the following conduct: 

(a) Falsely representing or implying that the Letters were from an attorney; 

(b) The use or distribution of any written communication which creates a false 

impression as to its source, authorization, or approval; 

(c) Using any business, company or organization name other than the true 

name of the debt collector’s business, company or organization; 

(d) Failing to send Plaintiff all of the required information pursuant to section 

1692g(a) of the FDCPA; 

(e) Designing, compiling and/or furnishing any form knowing that such form

would be used to create the false belief in the least sophisticated consumer that a person other 

than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or is attempting to collect 

a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so 

participating; and 

10

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 10 of 12
(f) Using false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect an alleged debt. 

43. Defendants additionally violated the FDCPA as to the Plaintiff herself. In addition 

to the violations set forth above, Defendants violated section 1692c(a)(3), 1692d, 1692d(5), 

1692e(4), and 1692e(5) of the FDCPA, by continually harassing Plaintiff by contacting Plaintiff 

at her place of employment on the same day when the Defendants knew or had reason to know 

that the Plaintiff’s employer prohibits the Plaintiff from receiving such communications, as well 

continually threatening to garnish Plaintiff’s wages. 

44. Defendants’ acts as described above were done with malicious, intentional, willful, 

reckless, wanton and negligent disregard for Plaintiff’s rights under the law and with the purpose 

of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt. 

45. As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff 

and members of the class for statutory damages and attorney's fees and costs, as well as to the 

Plaintiff herself for actual damages. 

VI. JURY TRIAL DEMAND

46. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that relief be granted as follows: 

(a) That an order be entered certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the 

Class; 

(b) That an order be entered declaring that Defendants’ actions as described 

above are in violation of the FDCPA; 

11

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 11 of 12
12

 (c) That an order be entered enjoining Defendants from continuing to 

communicate with Plaintiff and members of the Class in violation of the FDCPA; 

 (d) That judgment be entered against Defendants for actual damages, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); 

 (e) That judgment be entered against Defendants for statutory damages 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) and (B); 

 (f) That the Court award costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); and 

 (g) That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be just and 

proper. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. 

 BY: _____________________________ 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

 MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

 JOHN SOUMILAS, ESQUIRE 

 MICHAEL J. SZYMBORSKI, ESQUIRE 

 Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

 100 South Broad Street 

 Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

DATE: March 12, 2004 

Case 2:04-cv-01091-BMS Document 1 Filed 03/12/04 Page 12 of 12