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 

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180) 

3219 East Camelback Road, #588 

Phoenix, AZ 85018 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

43 Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT 06897 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Richard Blancas 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Blancas, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

RGS Financial, Inc, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 4:17-cv-00590-JAS Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

 Plaintiff, Richard Blancas (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, 

brings the following complaint against RGS Financial, Inc (hereafter “Defendant”) 

and alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s violations of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). 

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

U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), where 

the acts and transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district and/or 

where Defendant transacts business in this district. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Tucson, Arizona, and is a 

“person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

6. Defendant is a business entity located in Richardson, Texas, and is a 

“person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

7. Defendant uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails in a 

business the principle purpose of which is the collection of debts and/or regularly 

collects or attempts to collect debts owed or asserted to be owed to another, and is a 

“debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C.§ 1692a(6).

Case 4:17-cv-00590-JAS Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

8. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to 

be owed to a creditor other than Defendant. 

9. Plaintiff’s alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which property, 

services or money was acquired on credit primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes, is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

10. At all times mentioned herein where Defendant communicated with any 

person via telephone, such communication was done via Defendant’s agent, 

representative or employee. 

11. In August of 2017, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant requesting 

payment for a debt allegedly owed to Cox Communications; the letter is dated August 

23, 2017. 

12. Defendant’s letter requests a payment from Plaintiff in the amount of 

$108.68. 

13. Defendant’s letter clearly indicates that $21.74 of the $108.68 requested 

is being requested to cover Defendant’s “COLLECTION FEE”. 

14. Defendant’s “collection fee” equals 25% of the $86.94 amount allegedly 

owed to Cox Communications and is impermissible under the FDCPA. 

15. Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff to suffer a significant amount of 

stress and anxiety. 

Case 4:17-cv-00590-JAS Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

17. The FDCPA was passed in order to protect consumers from the use of 

abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices and in order to eliminate such 

practices. 

18. Defendant attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff and engaged in 

“communications” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). 

19. Defendant used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt, in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. 

20. Defendant attempted to collect an amount from Plaintiff that was 

unauthorized by agreement or law, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). 

21. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant constitute violations of 

the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited provisions. 

22. Plaintiff was harmed and is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s 

violations. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

Case 4:17-cv-00590-JAS Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

B. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A); 

C. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(3); 

D. Punitive damages; and 

E. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

DATED: December 6, 2017 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Richard Blancas 

Case 4:17-cv-00590-JAS Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 5