1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Timothy Barnes 

590 South Greenwood Rd. 

Independence, Oregon 97351 

503-585-9517 

tim@westsidelandscape.com 

FILED 7 Jll '1511:39USDC-t»' 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Timothy Barnes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Routh Crabtree Olsen, PC, 

John Thomas, Janaya Carter, 

Shayda Zaepoor Le, Federal 

National Mortgage 

Association, Seterus, Inc., 

John & Jane Does 1 - 10 

Defendants 

Case No.: 3 .' /.5-rlAI- /IJIJl-13:/( 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED 

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES 

JORY TRIAL DEMAND 

I.PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION 

20 1. This first amended petition is an action for 

21 

statutory and actual relief brought by an individual 

22 

23 

consumer Timothy Barnes ("Plaintiff") against Routh 

24 Crabtree Olsen, PC, John Thomas, Janaya Carter, Shayda 

25 Zaepoor Le, Federal National Mortgage Association, 

26 

Seterus, Inc., and John Does 1 - 10 (collectively 

27 

28 "Defendants") for violations of the Fair Debt 

1 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. 

Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the 

"FDCPA"); to obtain injunctive relief and for 

declaratory relief. This petition is also an action 

for statutory and actual relief under the Oregon 

Unlawful Trade Practice Law ("OUTPL"), Or. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 646.605 through 646.656, which are brought under the 

Court's pendent and supplemental jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff brings this action against the above named 

Defendants both jointly and severally based on their 

willful violations of said Acts. 

The FDCPA originally enacted by Congress became 

effective on March 20, 1978, and was again amended and 

broadened in 1986 and amended again in 1996. In 

passing the FDCPA, Congress stated its purpose was "to 

eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt 

collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who 

refrain from using abusive debt collection practices 

are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote 

consistent state action to protect consumers against 

debt collection practices." To this end, the FDCPA 

expressly prohibits debt collectors from engaging in 

2 

FIRST A.MENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 3. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 4 . 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

numerous specific acts or practices and also by 

mandate, requires debt collectors in attempting to 

collect consumer debts for others to affirmatively 

perform specific acts. 

The FDCPA defines a "debt collector" to include any 

person who uses any instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, the mails in any business, the principle 

purpose of which business is the collection of any 

debt, directly or indirectly, owed, due, or asserted to 

be owed or due to another. The FDCPA also defines a 

"debt collector" to include any person who regularly 

collects a debt owed to another. 

The FDCPA defines "debt" to mean any obligation or 

alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising 

out of a transaction in which the money, property, 

insurance or services which are the subject of the 

transaction are primarily for personal, family or 

household purposes, whether or not such obligations 

have been reduced to judgment. The obligation which 

Plaintiff is alleged to owe is a "debt" within the 

meaning of the FDCPA. 

3 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 5. 

2 

3 

4 6. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 7. 

27 

28 

The FDCPA defines "consumer" as any person obligated 

or allegedly obligated to pay any debt. 

The obligation to pay the debt does not affect 

Defendants liability under the FDCPA. Whether or not 

the Plaintiff owes the debt alleged to be due to any 

creditor or alleged creditor is not a factor nor is it 

material in this proceeding. Even if the Plaintiff 

does owe an obligation, Defendants must comply in all 

respects with the FDCPA. Therefore, the Plaintiff's 

action is not concerned with whether the Plaintiff is 

indebted to a creditor or alleged creditor, but whether 

Defendants violated the FDCPA, Baker v. G.C. Services 

Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 777 (9th Cir. 1982). "Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act applied to lawyer regularly 

engaged in consumer debt-collection litigation on 

behalf of creditor client." Consumer Credit Protection 

Act, 803(6), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. 1692(6), Heintz v 

Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 115 S. Ct. 1489 (1995). 

II. JURISDICTION/VENUE 

Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337(a). 

4 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201.1 and 2202. The doctrine of pendent and 

supplemental jurisdiction for state law claims is 

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Venue is proper in this district as Defendants 

transact business here, and the communications as well 

as the conduct of Defendants upon which this complaint 

is based occurred here. 

III. PARTIES 

The Plaintiff, Timothy Barnes, is a natural person, 

and is at all times relevant hereto a resident and 

citizen of the State of Oregon. The Plaintiff is a 

"consumer" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(3), and within the scope of the OUTPL. 

Defendant Routh Crabtree Olsen, PC is a professional 

corporation duly registered under Oregon Secretary of 

State engaged as "debt collectors" as defined by and 

within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), 

and as a corporation defined within the scope of O.R.S. 

§ 646.639(h), engaged in the business of collecting 

debts in this State where Defendants regularly collect 

5 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11. 

12. 

or attempt to collect debts owed or due or asserted to 

be owed or due another and whose principal purpose is 

the collection of debts using the mails and telephone. 

This Defendant may be served by serving the Officer in 

Charge at its principal place of business located at 

Routh Crabtree Olsen, PC, Stephen Routh, 511 SW 10th 

Avenue, Suite 400, Portland, Oregon 97205 and its 

statutory agent c/o CT Corporation System, 388 State 

Street, Suite 420, Salem, Oregon 97301 

Defendant John Thomas is a person and a debt 

collector, employed by Defendant Routh Crabtree Olsen, 

PC whose principal purpose as a Defendant is the 

collection of debts using the mails and telephone, and 

this Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts 

alleged to be due another. This Defendant is within 

the scope of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(h) and may be 

served with service of process by serving John Thomas, 

511 SW 10th Avenue, Suite 400, Portland, Oregon 97205 

Defendant Janaya Carter is a person and a debt 

collector, employed by Defendant Routh Crabtree Olsen, 

PC whose principal purpose as a Defendant is the 

6 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13. 

14. 

collection of debts using the mails and telephone, and 

this Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts 

alleged to be due another. This Defendant is within 

the scope of the Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(h) and may be 

served with service of process by serving Janaya 

Carter, 511 SW 10th Avenue, Suite 400, Portland, Oregon 

97205 

Defendant Shayda Zaepoor Le is a person and a debt 

collector, employed by Defendant Routh Crabtree Olsen, 

PC whose principal purpose as a Defendant is the 

collection of debts using the mails and telephone, and 

this Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts 

alleged to be due another. This Defendant is within 

the scope of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(h) and may be 

served with service of process by serving Shayda 

Zaepoor Le, 511 SW 10th Avenue, Suite 400, Portland, 

Oregon 97205 

Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association 

("FNMA") is engaged as a "debt collector" as defined by 

and within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6), and as an entity defined within the scope of 

7 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15. 

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(h), engaged in the business of 

collecting debts in this State where Defendants 

regularly collect or attempt to collect debts owed or 

due or asserted to be owed or due another and whose 

principal purpose is the collection of debts using the 

mails and telephone. FNMA does not have a duly 

authorized statutory agent in Oregon. This entity may 

be served with process by serving the Officer in Charge 

at Federal National Mortgage Association, 3900 

Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20016 and by 

serving the Oregon Secretary of State, 255 Capital 

Street NE, Suite 151, Salem, Oregon 97310. 

Defendant Seterus, Inc. f/k/a IBM Lender Business 

Process Services, Inc., ("Seterus" or "IBM" as stated 

herein), a Delaware Corp., is doing business in Oregon 

with minimum contacts in this forum. Seterus is an 

alleged subservicer of FNMA and is engaged as a "debt 

collector" as defined by and within the meaning of the 

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), and as a corporation 

defined within the scope of Or. Rev. Stat. § 

646.639(h). Seterus may be served with service of 

8 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16. 

17. 

process by serving the Officer in Charge at Seterus, 

Inc., Jeffrey A. Johnson, President, 3039 Cornwallis 

Rd. Bldg. 203, Suite CC133, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27709 and by serving its statutory agent 

CT Corporation System, 388 State Street, Suite 420, 

Salem, Oregon 97301. 

Defendants John & Jane Does 1 - 10 are all natural 

persons, corporations, parties, or an enterprise 

employed by Defendants as debt collectors and are 

involved in the instant matter. Said Defendants are 

currently unknown to Plaintiff. Said Defendants and 

entities will be joined as necessary parties upon 

further discovery of their true nature and liability 

once these facts are known and supported by competent 

evidence. 

IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

Plaintiff avers that all conditions precedent have 

been performed or have occurred under Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 9(c) and FDCPA violations may now be asserted. 

9 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

On the exact date of November 15, 2007, a federally 

related mortgage transaction was closed naming Chase 

Bank USA, N.A. as the payee. At the closing, Plaintiff 

consummated a toxic predatory mortgage loan (the 

"Transaction") with a principal sum of $378,250.00 

secured by a Deed of Trust covering real property 

described therein, then and now the Plaintiff's 

principal dwelling. Also at the closing, Plaintiff was 

provided with various disclosure documents relevant to 

federal law and the subject Transaction. Specifically, 

the Notices of Right to Cancel provided to the 

Plaintiff in connection with this Transaction discloses 

an inaccurate date that rescission rights terminate 

contrary to Reg. Z § 226.23(b) (1) (v). 

The Transaction required Plaintiff to pay money 

arising out of a transaction in which money, property, 

or goods and services were the subject thereof and the 

same were primarily for personal, family and household 

purposes. 

Accordingly, the material disclosure documents 

10 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 21. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

provided to the Plaintiff in connection with this 

Transaction violated the requirements of the Truth in 

Lending Act, ("TILA"); and Regulation Z in the 

following respects: 

A.By failing to provide accurately the expiration 

date rescission rights terminate in violation of 

Reg. Z § 226.23(b) (5). 

B.By failing to correctly provide all required 

disclosures prior to consummation of the 

transaction in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1638(b) 

and Reg. Z § 226.17(b), 

C.By failing to make required rescission disclosures 

'clearly and conspicuously' in writing in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a) and Reg. Z § 

226.17(a) (1). 

On August 4, 2010 and within 3 years under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1635(f), Plaintiff exercised and achieved rescission 

by sending a valid written Rescission Notice to all 

known interested Parties by U.S. Postal Service 

certified mail, copies attached hereto and incorporated 

as if fully stated herein by reference as Exhibit 1. 

11 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

According to the unambiguous statutory mandate 

provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b), Reg. Z § 226.23(d), as 

long as rescission of the Transaction timely occurred 

and the notice is valid, (and it is), it extinguishes 

any liability Plaintiff has to any creditor and 

Defendants for finance or other charges arising f rorn 

the Transaction, "[t]he consumer shall not be liable 

for any amount, including finance charges." Reg. z § 

226.23(d) (1). (emphasis) 

Upon receipt of a valid rescission request, the 

creditor, or any alleged assignee had twenty-days (20) 

to refund or credit this account all monies paid and to 

void the security interest, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 

1635(b); Reg. Z § 226.23(d) or seek judicial guidance 

under Reg. Z § 226.23(d) (4). 

Thus Plaintiff stopped making payments as of 

September, 2010 because of the statutory mandate under 

TILA, Reg. Z, and because if he continued making 

payments he would by equitably estopped from claiming 

his rescission was valid resulting in a waiver. 

Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Horne Finance, LLC 

12 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
flippantly ignored the Plaintiff's valid rescission 

notice and utterly failed to give effect to TILA 

rescission provisions within 20-days receipt, failed to 

accept a tender amount, and failed to seek judicial 

guidance as required by Reg. Z § 226.23(d) (4). 

According to the unambiguous statutory language and 

plain meaning of rescission provisions, the performance 

of Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC is 

a condition precedent to Plaintiff's obligation to 

tender any further payments until such time as these 

parties fully comply with the TILA's statutory mandate. 

After Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, 

LLC received Plaintiff's valid Rescission Notice, 

Plaintiff received a letter from Chase dated September 

13, 2010 describing a Servicer transfer to IBM, copy 

attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by 

reference as Exhibit 2. 

Plaintiff received letters from IBM dated Oct, 11, 

2010, Oct. 14, 2010, and Oct. 17, 2010 stating that IBM 

has the right to collect payments, the transfer of 

servicing and stating the subject Transaction is 

13 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 9. 

30. 

31. 

currently in default, copy attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit 3. 

Since Plaintiff was deemed to be in default, and FNMA 

did not acquire the alleged debt until after the 

default, then FNMA is a debt collector within the scope 

of the FDCPA, an is not exempt under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6) (F) 

Plaintiff then sent a dispute notice as that term is 

defined under the FDCPA to IBM dated Oct. 23, 2010 

informing IBM that Plaintiff had rescinded, describing 

the grounds for Plaintiff's rescission, provided IBM 

with enclosures of the certified mail receipts, and the 

actual rescission notices sent to Chase Bank USA, N.A. 

and Chase Home Finance, LLC describing the defective 

material Notices of Right to Cancel, copy attached 

hereto as Exhibit 4. 

Upon information and belief, Chase Bank USA, N.A. 

allegedly assigns only the Deed of Trust according to a 

Corporate Assignment on November 16, 2010 to Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") as 

nominee for FNMA. 

14 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
32. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 33. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 34. 

28 

Subsequent thereto, a letter dated January 21, 2011 

from IBM was received in the mail by Plaintiff stating 

an acknowledgment of Plaintiff's Oct. 23, 2010 dispute 

letter, copy attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The IBM 

letter, identifies FNMA as the owner of the Transaction 

and states: "We have been engaged by Fannie Mae to 

collect payments and respond to correspondence about 

its loans." *** "We do not believe that rescission 

would be appropriate for your loan." Thus, IBM has 

effectively acknowledged that they have some business 

relationship, and authority acting as an agent 

responding for FNMA and the subject Transaction. Thus, 

upon delivery of Plaintiff's dispute notice with its 

rescission notice enclosure to IBM constituted delivery 

of a rescission notice to FNMA. 

On February 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against 

Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Home Finance, LLC, IBM, and 

later joined FNMA to enforce his substantive rights 

under TILA, see Timothy Barnes v. Chase Home Finance, 

LLC, et al., Case No.: 13-35716. 

During the course of that proceeding, FNMA did not 

15 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 have a duly authorized statutory agent in Oregon, and 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff requested various licenses and contracts 

between FNMA and IBM to substantiate their pleadings. 

For example, Plaintiff requested documents, copy of 

Plaintiff's Request for Production attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit 6, as follows: 

A.Any and all licenses and/or registrations used by 

DEFENDANT, as required by Law in order to lawfully 

conduct its business in Oregon; 

B.Any and all agreements and written contracts 

between DEFENDANT, and FNMA related to this LOAN 

transaction, regarding or pertaining to the 

assignment, sale, or transfer of the Balloon Note 

and Deed of Trust; 

C. Please provide a complete audit trail of any 

document(s), computer(s), or other data held by 

you which indicate, address or discuss modifying 

or amending any information regarding Plaintiff 

reported by you; 

D. Please produce all documents which constitute 

consumer dispute verification (CDV's), Universal 

Data correction forms, correspondence with any 

consumer reporting agency, data deletion forms, or 

other documents which request an alteration and/or 

deletion of data you reported about Plaintiff; 

E. Please produce your documents and/or 

correspondence in your, or your attorney's, 

possession[s] that refer to or relate to any 

fact(s) which you believe may have any bearing 

upon this lawsuit or any defenses you have raised 

in this lawsuit, excluding letters between you and 

your attorney. 

16 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

35. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

36. 

F.All documents requested in PLAINTIFF'S Rescission 

Notice; Notice Pursuant to RESPA (QWR); & Request 

for Accounting. 

G. Please produce all documents involving 

communications between you and any of the 

following persons, in which the communication in 

any way referenced Plaintiff and/or any of his 

personal identifiers and/or any of the LOAN 

account numbers: 

i. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.; 

ii. Trans Union Corporation; 

iii. Experian Information Solutions LLC; 

iv. TRW, Inc., or any other entity with a name, 

legal, trade or assumed, which includes "TRW" 

v.Any other consumer reporting agency 

None of these documents were ever produced, even 

after Plaintiff sent the requisite notice that serves 

as a prerequisite to a meet and confer conference and 

pursuant to Fed R. Civ. Proc. 37(a) (2) (B), copy 

attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 7. 

The only logical reason for this omission is that the 

documents do not exist, or the documents contradict 

FNMA's and IBM's pleadings, and were intentionally 

withheld from disclosure. 

Thus, IBM (or Seterus) and FNMA are not authorized to 

17 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

37. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 38. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

maintain private financial records related to Plaintiff 

and this alleged Transaction, are not owners, or 

holders of the obligation, and have no licensure to 

operate a business collecting debts in Oregon. At 

minimum, this Court may report these entities to the 

Federal Trade Commission and Oregon Attorney General 

for operating without proper licensure and 

registration. 

The brief discovery phase terminated with a myriad of 

objections from those parties, and their refusal to 

produce any documents supporting their defenses and 

pleadings. However, one document provided to Plaintiff 

during discovery, the Clay Brangham Declaration, page 6 

of 6, disclosed an allonge whereby Chase Bank USA, N.A. 

is assigning the Balloon Note to Chase Home Finance, 

LLC. 

After months of frustrating unresolved and improper 

litigation and uncooperative discovery disclosure, and 

communications with Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Home 

Finance, LLC, IBM, and FNMA, Plaintiff filed a Rule 

12(c) judgment and disclosed the subject allonge. FNMA 

18 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

39. 

40. 

and IBM countered with their own dispositive motions 

and attached the same Clay Brangham Declaration. 

However, conspicuously absent from their pleadings and 

this Clay Brangham Declaration was the allonge. The 

district court rendered judgment in their favor on July 

8, 2013. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff timely filed notice of appeal, 

appealed the judgment, and during the briefing, 

Plaintiff again disclosed the allonge. However, FNMA, 

and the Defendants herein this claim, briefed to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that "In fact, 

Def endant-Appellees reviewed their records and could 

find no reference to the "allonge" anywhere in any 

declaration or in any of the documents DefendantAppellees produced to Barnes." Or to the federal court 

for that matter. 

While Plaintiff's TILA case is still pending on 

appeal, Plaintiff received multiple letters from a 

Seterus, Inc., dated February 18, 2014 claiming 

$514,527.61 is due and delinquent, another dated March 

18, 2014 claiming FNMA is the owner, and another by 

19 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

41. 

42. 

43. 

Lisa Donnelly, dated April 4, 2014, claiming legal 

authority to foreclose on Plaintiff's property, copies 

attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 8. 

Plaintiff responded with dispute notices applicable 

to all successors and assigns, dated February 18, 2014, 

and April 25, 2014 requesting validation, cease and 

desist, copies attached hereto and incorporated herein 

as Exhibit 9, informing Seterus that based on previous 

legal proceedings, and failure to produce contract 

documents consistent with their pleadings, they did not 

have authority to send legal notices, or take action to 

foreclose Plaintiff's property rights. 

Said communications, Exhibit 8, prove Seterus is 

conspiring to foreclose Plaintiff's property and 

accusing FNMA as coconspirator for the common purpose 

of accruing an unlawful end or economic gain for 

themselves at the expense and detriment of Plaintiff. 

Without any Dunning notice under the FDCPA that 

contains the consumer warning, FNMA, Defendants Routh 

Crabtree Olsen, PC, and Janaya Carter initiated a 

Foreclosure complaint, Monetary Award of $375,380.80 

20 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

44. 

45. 

4 6. 

Plus Interest, Costs and Fees Pursuant to Or. Rev. 

Stat. 21.160(1) (c), copy attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit 10. Astonishingly, the 

allonge that Defendants intentionally omitted in the 

federal TILA case when they filed the Clay Brangham 

Declaration suddenly appears in the foreclosure case. 

This FNMA foreclosure complaint is contrary to the 

notice requirements expressed in the deed of trust that 

must occur prior to any legal action, and is unfair 

because it is not permitted by the written agreement or 

by federal or state due process law. 

FNMA and their alleged counsel of record, alleged and 

certified pleading a foreclosure claim at ~ 19 that 

states: "No other suit or action has been instituted, 

or is now pending upon the Note or to foreclose the 

Deed of Trust. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at 

law." The complaint, Exhibit 10, also alleged that 

Plaintiff had failed to make monthly payments and that 

the Note and Deed of Trust were in default. 

These specific allegations in the foreclosure 

complaint are patently false because another action is 

21 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
pending regarding the enforceability of the alleged 

debt. These allegations are also contrary to pending 

federal TILA rescission requirements. Since the 

allegations are false, the signature on the claim is 

contrary to Oregon R. Civ. P. 17 C (1)-(4). 

None of the communications during the course of this 

foreclosure proceeding provided Plaintiff with a 

validation notice. 

During the course of the foreclosure proceeding, 

Seterus files an affidavit, copy attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit 11, with false factual 

statements and conclusions contrary to applicable 

federal statutory and regulatory requirements 

associated with Plaintiff's rescission of the 

Transaction. 

For example, the af f iant claims the account is in 

default since September 1, 2010, amounts are 

immediately payable, plus pre- and post-judgment 

interest, plus fees, that no other suit has been 

instituted or is now pending upon the Note and Deed of 

Trust, and a reasonable attorney fee. These statements 

22 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
confirm that FNMA acquired the Transaction after an 

alleged default and confirm possession of private 

financial data without proper licensure and 

registration with regulatory authorities that were not 

disclosed in the federal TILA claim. 

The Affiant Rebecca Graves, under penalty of law, 

claims to be a Foreclosure Specialist of Seterus as 

authorized subservicer for FNMA. This type of 

statement, "authorized," is a charade, contrary to 

these Defendants pleadings in the previous federal TILA 

claim regarding authority subject to agency principles. 

No contract, or evidentiary documents regarding this 

authority was ever disclosed or produced in the 

previous TILA claim when requested in discovery and in 

support of FNMA and IBM's pleadings. 

Accordingly, Exhibit 10 and 11 prove all of these 

Defendants are involved in some type of conspiracy for 

the common purpose of accruing an unlawful end or 

economic gain for themselves at the expense and 

detriment of Plaintiff. 

Moreover, according to TILA's statutory rescission 

23 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
mandate, Plaintiff is not in default and is prohibited 

and equitably estopped from assuming any position 

contrary to his rescission. This type of double 

standard imposed on Plaintiff is unfair, unethical, 

oppressive, and abusive legal conduct. 

Thus, the affidavit by Seterus, and utilized by FNMA, 

and all Defendants contains a false impression of the 

character, amount and legal status of the alleged debt. 

The foreclosure action is a communication from all 

Defendants and is a threat to take action that cannot 

be legally taken until Plaintiff's federal TILA claim 

is resolved on appeal. 

The foreclosure action and documents filed therein by 

Defendants is an unfair business practice that amounts 

to harassment, piecemeal litigation, and induces 

confusion as to authority of source and sponsorship of 

servicing, ownership, and collecting an alleged debt. 

All of the collection communications from Defendants 

overshadow Plaintiff's rights, and amount to a threat 

to communicate credit information, which is known, or 

should be known to be false, including the failure to 

24 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

,, ' 

58. 

communicate to credit reporting agencies that a 

disputed debt is disputed. 

In the interim, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss 

the state court foreclosure arguing that the court did 

not have subject matter jurisdiction, another action 

related to the alleged debt was still pending on 

appeal, that FNMA was not a real party due to their 

failure to properly attach the allonge affecting the 

proper negotiation of the promissory note and "Holder" 

status, and that Defendants failed to properly plead 

facts to constitute a cause of action, copy attached 

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 12. 

In Response thereto, these Defendants, change to the 

next attorney Shayda Zaepoor Le, continue their 

argument regarding an alleged default, and argue that 

Plaintiff has failed to obtain proof of a TILA 

disclosure violation, copy of their Response attached 

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 13. When, in 

fact, these Defendants already stipulated and agreed on 

appeal that Plaintiff had already proven that the 

Notices of Right to Cancel were defective. Again, 

25 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
false statements and pleadings are a sham and are 

unfair to the Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff files a Reply to this Response pleading, 

copy attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 

14, and respectfully informs the state court of the 

material defects, the lack of jurisdiction, the pending 

action on appeal, lack of real party, false statements, 

and improper negotiation of instruments regarding the 

allonge. 

Moreover, Defendants have a duty under the 15 U.S.C § 

1692e and rules promulgated by the Federal Trade 

Commission governing commerce, to comply with all 

restrictions on reporting directly or indirectly any 

disputed debts as disputed to all relevant parties. 

Credit Reporting Agencies survey and pick up public 

information in lawsuits for purposes of reporting 

delinquent credit information and it accomplishes the 

same result directly and indirectly when Defendants 

fail to assert collection on disputed amounts giving a 

false and misleading representation of the character, 

amount and legal status of any debt. 

26 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
Defendants knew or should have known that the 

original creditor/assignee failed to follow TILA 

rescission procedures within 20-days receipt of a valid 

request, failed to disclose the pending appeal, failed 

to provide competent evidence of a nexus, failed to 

produce a written contract that authorizes collection 

from subservicers, interest, or any expenses, all 

giving rise to unfair, deceptive, false, and misleading 

representations. 

During the course of this foreclosure proceeding, and 

after multiple hearings, the state court grants counsel 

for FNMA tremendous latitude but verbally informs them 

to appear in court within 30-days with evidence to 

substantiate their claims. 

John Thomas then files a Declaration, copy attached 

hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 15, in 

support of FNMA's supplemental record attaching the 

Clay Brangham Declaration but omits the exhibits filed 

in the federal TILA rescission case of Plaintiff, and 

claiming "The original promissory note that is the 

subject of this action is currently in my law firm's 

27 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
off ice safe in Portland and I have personally viewed 

it; " 

Plaintiff alleges that the Declaration of John Thomas 

is a device to subvert or avoid actual presentation to 

the state court as instructed with evidence. 

The next hearing occurs, and not one of these 

Defendants arrives in person with any evidence 

whatsoever as instructed by the state court and instead 

phone in by audio conference. 

Clearly these Defendants have no evidence and as a 

result of this final hearing, the foreclosure claim is 

dismissed. 

Indeed, Defendants' intentional conduct, negligence, 

omissions, misrepresentations and failure to abide by 

all foregoing federal and state law has caused 

substantial money damages, emotional and mental 

damages, headaches, nausea, loss of weight, 

embarrassment, insomnia, sick leave, as well as actual 

damage to the Plaintiff proximately and within his 

community. 

28 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
VI . FIRST CLAIM 

Violations Of The FDCPA 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by 

reference paragraphs 1 - 68 above as if fully stated 

herein. 

Defendants attempted to collect a consumer debt 

allegedly owed by Plaintiff and the obligation required 

Plaintiff to pay money arising out of transactions for 

personal, family, and household purposes. 

The Defendants failed to communicate that a disputed 

debt is disputed after multiple notices were sent to 

the Defendants, disputing the alleged debt, a violation 

of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). 

The Defendants used a false, deceptive and misleading 

representation to collect an alleged debt which 

violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). 

The Defendants' were obligated by federal statute to 

seek their remedy on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals whereby Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(5) when they threatened and did take action in 

29 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
bad faith that cannot be legally taken. 

Defendants have attempted persistently to collect an 

alleged debt that gives a false impression of the 

character, amount, and legal status contrary to 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(2) (A). 

Defendants have failed to produce a valid contract or 

competent evidence that authorizes collection costs, 

attorney fees, including interest in violation of 15 

u.s.c. § 1692f(l). 

Defendants have filed suit to collect an alleged debt 

without legal authority and contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f. 

Defendants have litigated an alleged debt and engaged 

in conduct that is oppressive and where the natural 

conduct was to harass and abuse the Plaintiff's rights 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 

The Defendants continuing collection and 

communication violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and §§ (b) 

creating confusion of Plaintiff's rights and by failing 

to fully provide requested verification of the debt. 

The Defendants subsequent collection efforts violate 

30 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) by failing to cease and desist 

collection until the alleged debt was competently 

verified. 

The Defendants communication fails to contain the 

mandatory validation notice and violate 15 U.S.C. § 

1692g. 

The Defendants communication fails to contain the 

mandatory validation notice under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, 

thus it is contrary to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(ll). 

The foregoing acts and omissions of these Defendants 

were undertaken by them willfully, persistently, 

intentionally, knowingly, discriminately as part of 

their routine debt collection business and/or in gross 

or reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff. 

As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, the 

Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for declaratory 

judgment that Defendants' conduct violated the FDCPA, 

and Plaintiff's actual damages, statutory damages, and 

costs and attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, 

Civil liability 

31 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
VII . SECOND CLAIM: 

Violations Under The Oregon Revised Statutes, §§ 646.605 

through 646.656 

Plaintiff incorporates all the above foregoing 

paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully stated herein by 

reference. 

The Oregon Unlawful Trade Practice Law ("OUTPL") 

provides that it is unlawful for any person to use any 

unfair method of competition or any unfair or deceptive 

act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce 

within this state including the employment of an 

Unlawful Collection Practice under Or. Rev. Stat. § 

646.639. 

The instant matter is a consumer collection 

transaction and Defendants' business service is within 

the scope of the OUTPL. Defendants' conduct and its 

transactional business generally and specifically, 

affect trade or commerce in this state. 

Defendants are not exempt under the OUTPL and nothing 

stated within the scope of the Unlawful Collection 

32 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 88. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 8 9. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 90. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 91. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Practice under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639 makes them 

exempt from liability. 

The violations of the FDCPA described in the above 

paragraphs was done knowingly or the willful commission 

of an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the 

scope of the Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(u). 

Defendants violated Oregon law by engaging in the 

business of collecting debts, or attempting to collect 

an alleged debt from Plaintiff without a valid license 

and proper registration under Or. Rev. Stat. § 697.015. 

The communications including a foreclosure action, 

the affidavits and declarations filed therein and in 

support thereof amount to an attempt to enforce a right 

or remedy with knowledge or reason to know that the 

right or remedy does not exist, is contrary to Or. Rev. 

Stat. § 646.639(k). 

The communications including a foreclosure action, 

the affidavits and declarations filed therein and in 

support thereof amount to a representation that the 

alleged debt may be increased by the addition of fees 

and charges when such fees and charges may not legally 

33 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

92. 

93. 

94. 

be added under TILA rescission provisions is contrary 

to Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(m). 

The communications including a foreclosure action, 

the affidavits and declarations filed therein and in 

support thereof amount to a collection of interest and 

other charges in excess of the alleged debt that are 

not expressly allowed by federal law and contrary to 

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.639(n). 

The conduct described in the above paragraphs causes 

injury, disparages Plaintiff's property value and is 

misleading under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(h), is false 

representation concerning the nature of the transaction 

under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(k), is unfair and 

deceptive trade under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(u), is 

oppressive, substantively unconscionable, and contrary 

to public policy and generally recognized standards 

applicable to the consumer credit protection practices 

and the OUTPL. 

Defendants' conduct has failed to abide by the 

Federal Trade Commission rules, and failed to abide by 

the FDCPA. Said conduct and material violations are 

34 

FIRST AM.ENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 95. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

96. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 97. 

18 

19 

20 

21 98. 

22 

23 

24 

99. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

unethical, cause piecemeal litigation and harassment, 

oppressive or unscrupulous and has in fact caused 

substantial injury to the Plaintiff. Said conduct is 

unfair and deceptive within the meaning of the OUTPL. 

The violations of the OUTPL described herein above 

cause or induce actual confusion or actual 

misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, 

approval, or certification of goods or services. 

Plaintiff is entitled to statutory and actual relief 

for said violations, and a reasonable attorney fee. 

VIII. THIRD CLAIM 

Declaratory And Injunctive Relief 

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by 

reference each paragraph 1- 96 above as if more fully 

stated herein. 

There exists a dispute over whether Defendants have 

violated the FDCPA, and the OUTPL that must be 

determined judicially. 

The unlawful, unfair and business acts and practices 

of Defendants described herein present a continuing 

threat to members of the general public in that 

35 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 100. 

7 

8 

9 

10 101. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

102. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 103. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants and the Doe Defendants are currently 

engaging in such acts and practices, and will persist 

and continue to do so unless and until an injunction is 

issued by this Court. 

Pursuant to OUTPL, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining 

Defendants from engaging in the acts and practices as 

hereinabove alleged 

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, a 

declaratory judgment and a determination that 

Defendants violated the FDCPA, the OUTPL, and Plaintiff 

is similarly entitled to an order enjoining said acts. 

As a result of Defendants actions, omissions, and 

violations, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, 

actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney 

fees, and all costs to include time lost at work and 

litigating this matter. 

Defendant's actions, omissions, and violations as 

alleged herein constituted the negligent, bad faith, 

and intentional infliction of mental and emotional 

distress upon the Plaintiff, proximately causing 

Plaintiff to suffer monetary damage, great mental 

36 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

104. 

105. 

distress, mental and physical pain, embarrassment, 

humiliation and will in the future continue to suffer 

the same. 

IX. FOURTH CLAIM 

Civil Conspiracy 

Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by 

reference each paragraph 1- 103 above as if more fully 

stated herein. 

In the course of this Transaction, the improper 

negotiation with an allonge that is NOT so permanently 

affixed as to become a part thereof whereby it is fatal 

to a "Holder" status that was undisclosed and 

intentionally withheld from filing in a prior federal 

judicial proceeding now on appeal, the unlawful 

collection thereof, and on the dated intervals herein, 

collectively all Defendants persistently and 

intentionally acted with reckless indifference, 

malicious ill will, tortious character to induce such 

confusion upon Plaintiff as to source and sponsorship 

of mortgage loan ownership and services, and as to the 

collection of an alleged debt. 

37 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 106. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

107. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 108. 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants all at the direction of FNMA, Routh 

Crabtree Olsen, PC, its Defendant employees: John 

Thomas, Janaya Carter, Shayda Zaepoor Le, Seterus, Inc. 

acted in concert with actual knowledge and agreed with 

each other via joint venture or individual conspiracy 

for the corrunon purpose of accruing an unlawful end or 

economic gain for themselves at the expense and 

detriment of Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was in fact injured as a direct and 

proximate result of these intentional unlawful acts and 

omissions, including inter alia, breach of trust, acts 

of intentional suppression of material facts, multiple 

material failures to disclose necessary parties, and 

filing false unsubstantiated documents in the public 

record, false notices, and invalid claims to foreclose 

on void instruments. 

As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory, 

actual, compensatory, and punitive damage to be proven 

at trial against Defendants, and whereby this clam 

should be allowed against any equitable claim of 

Defendants. 

38 

FIRST Ai.\1ENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

X. JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

109. Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution 

of the United States of America, Plaintiff is entitled 

to, and hereby demands, a trial by jury. 

XI . PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be 

entered against Defendants by this Court for the following: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4 . 

5. 

Enter injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief 

establishing the foregoing conduct of Defendants to be 

unlawful, enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage 

in said conduct, and granting such additional equitable 

relief as may be appropriate; 

Award Plaintiff actual damages; 

Award Plaintiff punitive damages; 

Award Plaintiff state and federal statutory damages; 

Award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental and 

emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment to be 

determined at trial; 

39 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAJ\fAGES,JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. 

7 . 

8 . 

Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees; 

Award Plaintiff his costs including time lost at work 

and litigating this matter; 

Grant such other and further relief as it deems just 

and proper. 

40 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

VERIFICATION 

I, Timothy Barnes hereby certify that the facts contained 

in the foregoing First Amended Verified Complaint For Money 

damages are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information and belief. 

Dated: July 7, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

c ___ _ 

Timothy Barnes 

590 South Greenwood Rd. 

Independence, Oregon 97351 

503-585-9517 

tim@westsidelandscape.com 

41 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of this First Amended 

Verified Complaint For Money Damages, Jury Trial Demand has 

been filed with the clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of Oregon and pursuant to Oregon 

Unfair Trade Practices Law to the authority as follows: 

Oregon Department of Justice 

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General 

1162 Court Street NE 

Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 

By my signature below, I understand a) this complaint will become part of 

DOJ's permanent records and is subject to Oregon's Public Records Law; b) 

this complaint may be released to the business or person about whom I am 

complaining; c) this complaint may be referred to another governmental 

agency. By my signature below I authorize any party to release to the DOJ any 

information and documentation relative to this complaint. 

July 7 I 2015 

Timothy Barnes 

590 South Greenwood Rd. 

Independence, Oregon 97351 

503-585-9517 

tim@westsidelandscape.com 

42 

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL DEMAND