Complaint – Page 1

Joshua Trigsted

Oregon State Bar ID Number 06531

Trigsted Law Group, P.C.

5200 SW Meadows Rd, Ste. 150

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

503-376-6774, ext. # 216

866-927-5826 facsimile

jtrigsted@attorneysforconsumers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION 

DANA MONAHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, and

HARRINGTON, ANDERSON &

DEBLASIO, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No.: 6:16-cv-249

COMPLAINT;

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES 

ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1692a, et seq.);

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for 

Defendants’ violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, 

et seq. (hereinafter “FDCPA”).

II. JURISDICTION

2. Plaintiff’s claim for violations of the FDCPA arises under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d), and therefore involves a “federal question” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Case 6:16-cv-00249-AA Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 5
Complaint – Page 2

III. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Dana Monahan, (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person residing in 

Douglas County, Oregon.

4. Defendant, Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Defendant Asset”), is a corporation 

engaged in the business of collecting debts by use of the mails and telephone. Defendant

Asset regularly attempts to collect debts alleged due another.

5. Defendant, Harrington, Anderson, & DeBlasio, LLC (“Defendant HAD”), is 

a corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts by use of the mails and telephone. 

Defendant HAD regularly attempts to collect debts alleged due another.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Defendants are each a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692a(6).

7. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

8. All activities of Defendants set out herein were undertaken in connection 

with the collection of a “debt,” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

9. Within the last year, Defendants took multiple actions in an attempt to collect 

a debt from Plaintiff. Defendant’s conduct violated the FDCPA in multiple ways, including 

the following.

10. Falsely representing the amount, character, or legal status of any debt, 

including Defendant Asset continuing to try to collect a debt that had been settled in full 

already through its representative, Defendant HAD (§ 1692e(2)(A)).

Case 6:16-cv-00249-AA Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 5
Complaint – Page 3

11. Using false representations or deceptive practices in connection with 

collection of a debt, including Defendant HAD either: (1) falsely representing to Plaintiff 

that it had authority to settle a debt; or (2) failing to report to Defendant Asset Acceptance 

that Plaintiff had settled the debt in full, resulting in Asset’s continued collection on a 

judgment and an unlawful garnishment. Defendant HAD came to a settlement agreement 

with Plaintiff in 2013 to make monthly payments ending in December, 2013, to settle the 

debt in full. In December, Plaintiff called HAD to confirm that her payment for that month 

completed the settlement arrangement and that the debt would be settled in full with that 

last payment. HAD’s representative confirmed this and Plaintiff made her last payment. 

Later, another law firm garnished Plaintiff for amounts remaining on the judgment that was 

settled in full. Although HAD’s failure to relay the fact of the settlement to Asset 

Acceptance would have happened more than 1 year ago, Plaintiff did not learn about 

Defendant’s failure and could not have until October, 2015, when she was garnished by 

Asset’s new attorney, Suttell Hammer & White (§ 1692e(10); 1692f; 1692f(1)).

12. As a result of the aforementioned violations, Plaintiff suffered and continues 

to suffer injuries to Plaintiff’s feelings, personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental 

anguish and severe emotional distress. 

13. Defendants intended to cause, by means of the actions detailed above, 

injuries to Plaintiff’s feelings, personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and 

severe emotional distress.

14. Defendants’ actions, detailed above, were undertaken with extraordinary 

Case 6:16-cv-00249-AA Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 5
Complaint – Page 4

disregard of, or indifference to, known or highly probable risks to purported debtors.

15. To the extent Defendants’ actions, detailed in paragraphs above, were carried 

out by an employee of either Defendant, that employee was acting within the scope of his 

or her employment.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

16. Plaintiff reincorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs.

17. The preceding paragraphs state a prima facie case for Plaintiff and against 

Defendants for violations of the FDCPA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered against the 

Defendants for the following:

A. Declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct violated the FDCPA;

B. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k;

C. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

D. Costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney’s fees for all successful claims, 

and any unsuccessful claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the 

successful claims, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; and,

E. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Case 6:16-cv-00249-AA Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 5
Complaint – Page 5

PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY

Dated this 10th day of February, 2016

By:__s/Joshua Trigsted_____

Joshua Trigsted

Trigsted Law Group, P.C.

5200 SW Meadows Rd, Ste. 150

Lake Oswego, OR 97035

503-376-6774, ext. # 216

866-927-5826 facsimile

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 6:16-cv-00249-AA Document 1 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 5