IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 

MICHAEL GREEN, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 

 Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d).

2. This action arises out of the Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection 

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

 VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this Judicial District.

4. The acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in this Judicial District.

5. The Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District. 

6. The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Michael Green is a natural person.

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12
2 

8. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Lakewood, County of Jefferson, State of 

Colorado. 

9. The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

10. The Plaintiff is a “any person” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1692d 

preface.

11. Defendant Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability 

company operating from an address at 500 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 400, 

Valhalla, New York, 10595. 

12. The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is The 

Corporation Company, 1675 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 

80202. 

13. The Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6). 

14. The Defendant is licensed as a collection agency by the state of Colorado.

15. The principal purpose of the Defendant is the collection of debts using the 

mails and telephone.

16. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

17. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another that arose out of 

transactions in which the money, property or services which are the subject 

of the transactions are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 12
3 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

18. Sometime before 2010 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation 

that was primarily for personal, family and household purposes namely an 

amount due and owing on a personal account owed to HSBC (hereinafter 

the “Account”). 

19. The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(5). 

20. The Account went into default with HSBC. 

21. After the Account went into default the Account was placed or otherwise 

transferred to the Defendant for collection. 

22. The Defendant is in the business of purchasing delinquent consumer 

accounts, typically paying no more than ten cents on the dollar. 

23. The Defendant then collects the accounts or hires other entities to collect 

the accounts. 

24. The Defendant claims to have purchased the Account. 

25. On information and belief the Defendant paid less than ten cents on the 

dollar for the Account. 

26. The Account was placed or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for 

collection. 

27. The Plaintiff disputes the Account. 

28. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication 

on the Account. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 12
4 

29. The Defendant’s collector(s) were employee(s) of the Defendant at all 

times mentioned herein. 

30. The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its 

employee(s). 

31. The Defendant reported the Account to Transunion, a credit reporting 

agency, in August 2011. 

32. In August 2011 the Plaintiff reviewed a copy of his Transunion credit 

report and saw the Defendant’s entry on his Transunion credit report. 

33. On August 25, 2011 the Plaintiff called the Defendant to dispute the 

Account with the Defendant. 

34. On August 25, 2011 the Plaintiff had a telephone conversation regarding 

the Account with the Defendant. 

35. On August 25, 2011 the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a telephone 

conversation while the Defendant was attempting to collect the Account 

from the Plaintiff. 

36. During the telephone call / conversation on August 25, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff disputed the Account. 

37. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employee the Plaintiff stated 

that he was calling because the Defendant was on his credit report for an 

HSBC account. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 12
5 

38. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employee the Plaintiff disputed 

the Account. 

39. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employee the Plaintiff stated: I’m 

disputing it. 

40. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011 

between the Defendant’s employee and the Plaintiff the Defendant’s 

employee stated that the Defendant had two accounts for the Plaintiff. 

41. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employee the Plaintiff stated: I’m 

disputing both accounts that you have on file. 

42. During the telephone call / conversation on or about August 25, 2011 

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s employee the Plaintiff stated: Its 

disputed because I’m just disputing it. 

43. The Plaintiff disputed the Account with the Defendant in August 2011. 

44. The Defendant was aware that the Account was disputed in August 2011. 

45. Prior to September 2011 the Plaintiff disputed the Account with the 

Defendant. 

46. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that the Account was 

disputed. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 12
6 

47. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was informed that the Account 

was disputed. 

48. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that in August 2011 

the Plaintiff disputed the Account. 

49. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that during a 

telephone call between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 25, 2011 

the Plaintiff stated: “I’m disputing both accounts that you have on file” and 

“I’m disputing it”. 

50. In September 2011 the Defendant communicated information regarding 

the Account to Transunion, a credit reporting agency. 

51. In September 2011 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the

balance on the Account was: $1,124. 

52. In September 2011 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the 

Original Creditor on the Account was: HSBC BANK NEVADA ORCHARD 

BANK. 

53. In September 2011 the Defendant failed to communicate to Transunion 

that the Account was disputed. 

54. In September 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion that 

the Account was disputed. 

55. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to 

Transunion that the Account was disputed. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 12
7 

56. As of October 7, 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion 

that the Account was disputed. 

57. The Defendant’s purpose for communicating the information on the 

Account to Transunion was to attempt to collect the Account. 

58. The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in 

September 2011 on the Account conveyed information regarding the 

Account directly or indirectly to Transunion. 

59. The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in 

September 2011 on the Account constituted a “communication” as defined 

by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

60. The only reason that the Defendant communicated the information 

regarding the Account in September 2011 to Transunion was to attempt to 

collect the Account. 

61. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Experian. 

55. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Experian. 

56. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Experian on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 12
8 

57. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Transunion. 

58. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Transunion. 

59. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Transunion on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

60. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Equifax. 

61. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Equifax. 

62. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Equifax on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

63. The telephone call / conversation on August 25, 2011 between the Plaintiff 

and the Defendant via its employee conveyed information regarding the 

Account directly or indirectly to the Plaintiff. 

64. The telephone call / conversation on August 25, 2011 between the Plaintiff 

and the Defendant via its employee constituted a “communication” as 

defined by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 12
9 

65. On information and belief the Defendant made an audio recording 

and/or audio recording(s) of its telephone call / conversation with 

the Plaintiff on or about August 25, 2011. 

66. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy and/or copies 

of the audio recording(s) of its telephone call / conversation with the 

Plaintiff on or about August 25, 2011. 

67. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of 

some of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in 

the year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

68. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of 

some of the audio recording(s) of its telephone call(s) / 

conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the 

instant action. 

69. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of 

all of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the 

year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

70. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of the 

audio recording(s) of all of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) 

with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

71. On information and belief the Defendant’s copies of the audio 

recording(s) of its telephone call(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 12
10 

to the filing of the instant action substantiate the Plaintiff’s 

allegations in this action. 

72. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it communicated to Transunion on the Account. 

73. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it communicated to Transunion on the Account in September 

2011. 

74. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s)

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it communicated to Transunion on the Account prior to 

September 2011. 

75. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it communicated to Transunion on the Account after 

September 2011. 

76. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute false and misleading 

representation(s) and mean(s) and violate FDCPA 1692e preface, e(2)(A), 

e(8) and e(10). 

77. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect a debt and violate FDCPA 1692f preface. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 12
11 

78. The FDCPA is a “strict liability statute,” and Plaintiff need only “show one 

violation of its provisions to be entitled to judgment in her favor.” Ellis v. 

Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F.Supp. 2d 215, 219 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). 

79. As a consequence of the Defendant’s action(s), the Plaintiff seeks 

damages pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k. 

COUNT I, FDCPA VIOLATION 

80. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in 

 full. 

81. The act(s) and omission(s) of the Defendant constitute a violation of the 

FDCPA § 1692e preface, e(2)(A), e(8), e(10) and § 1692f preface. 

82. Pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k the Plaintiff seeks damages, 

 reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 12
12 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

The Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury. U.S. Const. 

amend. 7., Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 38. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court grants the following: 

1. A finding that the Defendant violated the FDCPA and/or an admission from 

the Defendant that it violated the FDCPA. 

2. Damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). 

3. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). 

4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_s/ David M. Larson ________ 

David M. Larson, Esq. 

405 S. Cascade Avenue, Suite 305 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

 (719) 473-0006 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff 

Case 1:11-cv-02623-LTB Document 1 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 12