DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS; §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § CIVILACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00343

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS,

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC. JULIE 

HENDRICK AND ERIK HARRIS,

DEFENDANTS

 §

 §

 §

 §

 §

 §

 

DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT:

COMES NOW Defendant, McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc., by and through 

counsel, Michael R. Rake, and in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(“FRCP”), files this Answer to Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Ross’s (“Ross”) “Original Complaint and 

would show the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant admit 

that Ross brings this action under various federal and state laws. Defendant further deny that 

Ross is entitled to any relief in this action.

2. With regard to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved 

in any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection 

action) and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 2.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID 157
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 2 of 18

PARTIES

3. With regard to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, but has no reason to believe the 

allegations are false and there admit Plaintiff’s allegations. With regard to Paragraph 4, 

Defendants admit that Defendant McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc., d/b/a Diversified 

Credit Systems (“Diversified”) is the assignee of a debt owed by Ross to APFA, specifically, a 

$5,436.47 overpayment to Ross that resulted from an incorrect calculation of a payout of Ross’s 

unused sick and vacation days. Defendant admits that Diversified’s registered agent for service 

of process is M.S. McGaughey. Defendant admits the allegations of the remainder of Paragraph 

4, except with regard to sentence four of Paragraph 4, that states a legal conclusion to which no

response is required, but to the extent a response is required that allegation is admitted.

4. With regard to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Defendant has no knowledge of the 

relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, APFA (other than the debt collection action over 

the $5,436.47 amount). Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations 

that the Transition Agreement formed the basis of the “original claim” which “gave rise to this 

lawsuit” and therefore deny those allegations. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit 

or deny the allegations that APFA can be served through its current National President, Julie 

Hedrick (“Hedrick”) at APFA headquarters at 1004 W. Euless Blvd., Euless, TX 76040, but 

has no belief that Plaintiff’s allegation is false, and therefore admit that allegation.

5. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 6, but has no belief that Plaintiff’s allegation is false, and therefore admit that 

allegation.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 18 PageID 158
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 3 of 18

6. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 6,

but has no belief that Plaintiff’s allegation is false, and therefore admit that allegation.

 7. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 7,

but has no belief that Plaintiff’s allegation is false, and therefore admit that allegation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendant admits

that Ross filed his Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 

and asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of Federal Question and diversity between 

the parties to this suit. 

9. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant admits

that Ross brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and 

(B), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f, and the Labor Management 

Records and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. 412, Section 102, but deny that Ross is entitled to any 

relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and B), Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to 

admit or deny the other allegations in Paragraph 9 and therefore denies those allegations.

10. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants lack 

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000, and therefore deny this allegation. With regard to the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 10, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 18 PageID 159
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 4 of 18

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

11. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, this sentence states 

a legal conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required the 

allegation is denied. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. With regard to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

13. With regard to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

With

14. With regard to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action 

between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore 

has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the 

allegation is denied.

15. With regard to Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 4 of 18 PageID 160
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 5 of 18

therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied. 

16. With regard to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action 

between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore 

has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the 

allegation is denied. 

17. With regard to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action 

between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore 

has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the 

allegation is denied. 

18. With regard to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action 

between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore 

has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the 

allegation is denied. 

 19. With regard to Paragraph 19. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and 

therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

 20. With regard to Paragraph 20. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 5 of 18 PageID 161
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 6 of 18

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and 

therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

 21. With regard to Paragraph 21. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and 

therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

 22. With regard to Paragraph 22. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was 

not involved in any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt 

Collection action) and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to 

the extent a response is required the allegation is denied.

 23. With regard to Paragraph 23. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and 

therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

24. With regard to Paragraph 24. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action between 

Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore has no 

knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the allegation is 

denied.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 6 of 18 PageID 162
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 7 of 18

25. With regard to Paragraph 25. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in any action between 

Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) and therefore has no 

knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is required the allegation is 

denied.

26. With regard to Paragraph 26. of the Complaint, Defendant admits it sent a 

verification of debt letter to Ross. However, Defendant never had possession of or knowledge of 

any evidence that the debt was not valid (other than Plaintiff’s own dispute) and Defendant 

received verification of the Debt from APFA. Defendant denies that there was any proof in its 

possession that Ross did not owe the debt and further denies that Defendant had no right to 

attempt to collect the debt.

27. With regard to Paragraph 27. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

28. With regard to Paragraph 28. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

29. With regard to Paragraph 29. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 7 of 18 PageID 163
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 8 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

30. With regard to Paragraph 30. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

31. With regard to Paragraph 31. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

32. With regard to Paragraph 32. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

33. With regard to Paragraph 33. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

34. With regard to Paragraph 34. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 8 of 18 PageID 164
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 9 of 18

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

35. With regard to Paragraph 35. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

36. With regard to Paragraph 36. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

37. With regard to Paragraph 37. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

39. With regard to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, No Answer is required, but 

Defendant repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding 

paragraphs. 

40. With regard to Paragraph 40. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 9 of 18 PageID 165
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 10 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required

41. With regard to Paragraph 41. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

42. With regard to Paragraph 42. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

(The Complaint does not include paragraphs numbered 43 through 56)

CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT RECORDS DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS

57. With regard to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, No Answer is required, but 

Defendant repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding 

paragraphs. 

58. With regard to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the language of 

29 U.S.C., Section 412 as alleged, but denies that this paragraph is relevant to the Defendant, and 

therefore denies the remaining allegations.

59. With regard to Paragraph 59. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 10 of 18 PageID 166
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 11 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

CLAIM: BRACH OF UNION CONSTITUTION

60. No Answer is required, but Defendant repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by 

reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

61. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not 

involved in any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt 

Collection action) and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the 

extent a response is required the allegation is denied.

62. With regard to Paragraph 62. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

63. With regard to Paragraph 63. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

64. With regard to Paragraph 64. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 11 of 18 PageID 167
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 12 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

65. With regard to Paragraph 65. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action) 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

66. With regard to Paragraph 66. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action).

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

67. No Answer is required, but Defendant repeats, realleges and incorporates herein 

by reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

68. Defendant admits it published to credit reporting agencies that Plaintiff was in 

collections. Plaintiff did dispute to Debt, but Defendant has no knowledge of when Plaintiff 

discovered the debt. After Plaintiff disputed the debt, and Defendant properly investigated the 

debt and Plaintiff’s dispute. The debt was verified by APFA and confirmed that the debt was 

valid. Plaintiff was provided with and sent all available information Defendant had at the time. 

Plaintiff’s own statement exonerates Defendant’s liability and therefore, Defendant denies that it 

violated any terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

69. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 69, this sentence states a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required. Defendant denies that it furnished any information 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 12 of 18 PageID 168
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 13 of 18

relating to the consumer (Plaintiff) that it had reason to believe was inaccurate. Defendant 

denies that it failed to investigate the validity of the debt, or that it breached any duty to Plaintiff. 

Defendant updated Plaintiff’s report with a disputed status with the credit bureaus when Plaintiff 

filed his dispute. Defendant denies being the cause of any damages, including refinance 

damages, cost or Attorney fees associated with the credit report.

CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

69. (repeated number)With regard to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendant repeats, 

realleges and incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs.

70. With regard to Paragraph 70. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

71. With regard to Paragraph 71. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

72. With regard to Paragraph 72. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 13 of 18 PageID 169
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 14 of 18

73. With regard to Paragraph 73. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

74. With regard to Paragraph 74. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

75. With regard to Paragraph 75. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

76. With regard to Paragraph 76. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

77. With regard to Paragraph 77. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 14 of 18 PageID 170
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 15 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS

78. With regard to Paragraph 78. of the Complaint, Defendant repeats, realleges and 

incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs.

79. With regard to Paragraph 79. Of the Complaint, Defendant denies that it violated 

15 U.S.C., Sections 1692 d. c. and f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or any 

other Federal or State Statute. Defendant further denies it mispresented the amount, the nature 

of, or made any false, disparaging or misleading comments to the debtor or any other person or 

entity for any purpose and particularly to abuse the Plaintiff in any manner.

80. With regard to Paragraph 80. Of the Complaint Defendant denies that it never sent 

an initial Contact letter to Ross, nor that it violated Ross’s rights to dispute the validity of the 

debt or prevent credit reporting. Defendant sent the initial collection letter to Ross on January 

29, 2021 and included all required legal text per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Records 

for the Defendant show the letter was never returned to sender, nor was Defendant notified by 

the Post of any change of address. Defendant had no reason to believe the Plaintiff did not 

receive Defendant’s initial letter. Defendant repeats its denial of any valid claim by Plaintiff for 

any actions on the part of Defendant.

CLAIM: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

81. With regard to Paragraph 81. of the Complaint, Defendant repeats, realleges and 

incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs.

82. With regard to Paragraph 82. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 15 of 18 PageID 171
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 16 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

83. With regard to Paragraph 83. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

84. With regard to Paragraph 84. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A 

CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

85. With regard to Paragraph 85. of the Complaint, Defendant repeats, realleges and 

incorporates herein by reference its answers to all preceding paragraphs.

86. With regard to Paragraph 86. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

87. With regard to Paragraph 87. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 16 of 18 PageID 172
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 17 of 18

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

88. With regard to Paragraph 88. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

89. With regard to Paragraph 89. of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, as this Defendant was not involved in 

any action between Plaintiff, Ross and Defendant, APFA (other than a Debt Collection action). 

and therefore has no knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s allegations, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied.

Any allegation of fact contained in the Complaint which is not specifically admitted or 

denied above is hereby denied. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, McGaughey, Reber and 

Associates, Inc. prays that this Counterclaim be brought on for hearing, and that upon full 

hearing the Court enter an Order: 

1. Granting Judgment in favor of Defendant, McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. 

finding and declaring that Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff, Ross;

2. Granting Defendant McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. reasonable attorney’s fees, 

costs of action, and other expenses of litigation in this proceeding; and 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 17 of 18 PageID 173
DEFENDANT, MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ORIGINAL ANSWER

Page 18 of 18

3. Granting Defendant McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc. such other and further relief 

to which it may be entitled. 

Date: June 28, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Michael R. Rake

____________________________________

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1556

Lake Dallas, TX 75065

Tel. & Fax: 940-498-2103

E-mail: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com

 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,

 MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

 ASSOCIATES, INC.

Certificate of Service

This certifies that this document was served in accordance with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure on June 28, 2022.

/S/ Michael R. Rake

 

Michael Rake

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 23 Filed 06/28/22 Page 18 of 18 PageID 174