UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Juan J. Zamora §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No.

v 5:20-cv-110

Javitch Block, LLC and Eric S. 

Peterson

Complaint

____________________

Introduction

1. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was enacted to stop debt 

collectors from harassing, abusing, and making misrepresentations to 

and about consumers. Congress found that these practices led to the 

job loss, the number of personal bankruptcies, invasion s of privacy, 

and marital disharmony. 

2. Chapter 31 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows for 

the post-judgment appointment of a receiver to aid in collection of a 

judgment. To appoint a receiver a judgment creditor must show a 

court some evidence that the judgment debtor has non-exempt assets. 

3. The receivership statute expands on Texas’ generous and well know 

exemptions by making the proceeds of exempt assets exempt from 

receivership. “A court may not enter or enforce an order under this 

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 8
section that requires the turnover of the proceeds of, or the 

disbursement of, property exempt under any statute, including 

Section 42.0021, Property Code.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 

31.002(f). 

4. Texas courts have held that the proceeds of wages are exempt. “The 

trial court ordered that Robert must turn over his wages to a receiver 

on the first and fifteenth days of each month until the judgment is 

satisfied. We hold that this order violates Sec. 31.0 02(f) of the Texas 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code. By prohibiting the turnover of the 

proceeds of property exempt under any statute, this section 

necessarily prohibits the turnover of the proceeds of current wages.” 

Caulley v. Caulley, 806 S.W.2d 795, 798 (Tex. 1991). “With regard 

to a turnover order, the proceeds of property exempted under Section 

42.0021(a) cannot be the subject of a turnover order. Civ. Prac. & 

Rem. Code § 31.002(f)” Bergman v. Bergman, 888 S.W.2d 580, 586 

(Tex. App. 1994).

5. After a line of cases that allowed the turnover of deposited paychecks 

and the proceeds of retirement accounts, the Texas Legislature 

amended the receivership statute. “This amendment was intended, in 

part, to prevent turnovers of paychecks, retirement checks, and ot her 

similar types of assets after a judgment debtor received them. 

HOUSE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, BILL ANALYSIS, Tex.H.B. 

1029, 71st Leg., R.S. (1989). Thus, even when property is no longer 

exempt under any other statute, if it represents proceeds or 

disbursements of exempt property, it is not subject to a turnover 

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 8
order.” Burns v. Miller, Hiersche, Martens, 948 S.W.2d 317, 323 

(Tex. App. 1997)

6. Plaintiff brings this action for Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA 

and seeks actual damages, statutory damages, a ttorney’s fees, and 

costs. 

Jurisdiction & Venue 

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

U.S.C. § 1331.

8. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b) as a substantial part of the events or omissi ons giving rise to 

Plaintiff’s claims occurred here. 

Parties

9. Plaintiff, Juan Zamora, is a natural person who resides in and has 

resided in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas at all times relevant to 

this action.

10. Defendant, Javitch Block LLC, is an Ohio limited liability company

whose mailing address is 1100 Superior Avenue East, Floor 19, 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2521. It may be served with process via its 

registered agent Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. at 1701 Directors 

Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78744.

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 8
11. Defendant Eric S. Peterson is a licensed attorney at law in the State 

of Texas, having been admitted on January 25, 2018 and holding bar 

card number 24107156.

12. The principal business address of Peterson is 1100 Superior Avenue 

East, Floor 19, Cleveland, OH 44114-2521.

Facts

13. Defendants regularly collect, and attempt to collect, defaulted debts 

which were incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for personal, 

family, or household purposes on behalf of others using the U.S. 

Mail, telephone, and internet.

14. The principal purpose of Javitch is the collection of such debts.

15. Peterson is an attorney employed by Defendant Javitch. 

16. As part of his duties, Peterson regularly engages in the collection of 

consumer debts through litigation. 

17. The Debt is an allegedly defaulted debt that Zamora used for 

personal, family, and household purposes (the “Debt”).

18. Mr. Zamora is employed by San Antonio Independent School 

District as a groundskeeper. This is his sole source of income and he 

earns an hourly wage. Mrs. Zamora is emplo yed at a local day care. 

She earns an hourly wage. The Zamora’s have no income outside of 

the wages they earn.

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 8
19. On May 23, 2016 Javtich, on behalf of Toyota Motor Credit 

Corporation, was awarded a judgment against Zamora.

20. In a motion file stamped July 19, 2019, Javitch sought appointment 

of a post judgment receiver.

21. A true and correct copy of Javitch’s motion is attached as Exhibit 1. 

22. In its motion Javitch states that the judgment includes “postjudgment interest at .0.00% per annum.” 

23. In Exhibit A to Javitch’s motion Eric S. Peterson testified via 

affidavit that “Plaintiff obtained judgment against Defendant on May 

23, 2016 for $10,707.51 plus interest at the rate of 5.00% from date 

of judgement and costs of court.”

24. A copy of the judgment was not included as an exhibit to the 

motion. 

25. The motion and the affidavit appear to be signed by the same 

person. 

26. Both statements regarding the interest accruing on the judgment 

cannot be true.

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 8
27. The motion contains a section titled “Non-Exempt Property” which 

refers to the affidavit. 

28. The affidavit in Exhibit A contains testimony by Peterson that 

Zamora “owns or has, or will have within its possession or control 

property interests...which is not exempt from attachment, execution, 

or any other type of seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities.” 

29. This statement is based on Peterson’s “personal knowledge” gained 

by his review of “the file on Defendant” and his general familiarity 

with “this” account.

30. This self-referential circular reasoning fails to provide evidence of 

non-exempt property.

31. On information and belief Peterson did not conduct a material 

review and his general familiarity with Zamora’s account are not 

evidence that Zamora has some non-exempt property.

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 8
32. Had Peterson conducted a sufficient investigation he would have 

learned that Zamora does not possess any assets exempt from 

receivership. 

33. Peterson’s affidavit makes false and misleading representation in an 

effort to collect a consumer debt. 

First Cause of Action – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

34. Defendants are a debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

35. The Debt is a debt as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

36. Zamora is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

37. The motion is a communication as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).

38. The Defendants violated the FDCPA in that they:

a. Made false or misleading representations in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e;

b. Made a false representation of the character, amount, or legal 

status of the Debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A);

c. Falsely represented or implied that a communication is from an 

attorney in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3);

d. Threatened to take action that cannot legally be taken in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4); and

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 8
e. Used a false representation or deceptive means to collect or 

attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).

Jury Demand

39. Plaintiff demands this case be tried before a jury.

Prayer for Relief

Plaintiff prays, that this Court enter judgment against Defendant and in 

favor of Plaintiff for:

a. Actual damages per 15 U.S.C. § 1692 k(a)(1);

b. Statutory damages per 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2); and

c. Attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses per 15 U.S.C. § 1692 

k(a)(3).

Dated: January 29, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/William M. Clanton

William M. Clanton

Texas Bar No. 24049436

Law Office of Bill Clanton, P.C.

926 Chulie Dr. 

San Antonio, Texas 78216

210 226 0800

210 338 8660 fax 

bill@clantonlawoffice.com

Case 5:20-cv-00110 Document 1 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 8