UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.:

ERICA DRECKMAN

Plaintiff,

v.

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC., a Florida Corporation

Defendant

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

JURISDICTION

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

1692k(d).

2. This action arises out of Defendant’s violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this District.

4. The acts and transactions occurred in this District.

5. The Plaintiff resides in this District.

6. The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District.

7. The Defendant is a registered foreign corporation with the Colorado Secretary of State, 

having a registered agent at 1675 Broadway, Ste 1200, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Erica Dreckman is a natural person who resides in the City of Fort Collins, County 

of Larimer, State of Colorado, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(3).

9. Plaintiff Stellar Recovery Incorporated is a Florida corporation operating from an address 

of 1327 Highway 2 West, Suite 100, Kalispell, Montana 59901 and is a “debt collector” as 

that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

10. The Defendant transacts business in this jurisdiction.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. The amount the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant arises out of an alleged 

debt involving a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

12. The alleged debt that the Defendant is attempting to collect upon stems from a debt 

created by Comcast cable. 

13. The Plaintiff disputes the debt and considers it to be invalid.

14. Sometime prior to January 1, 2011 the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff with a letter 

demanding payment of $289.57.

15. The Defendant advised the Plaintiff that if she did not pay or refused to pay that legal 

action against her would be initiated.

16. The Defendant then launched an aggressive telephone campaign demanding payment and 

contacted the Plaintiff repeatedly on her telephone.

17. After being told to stop further contact with the Plaintiff, the only imaginable purpose in 

continuing contact by the Defendant would be to harass abuse and oppress the Plaintiff.

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
18. Such conduct is prohibited by the FDCPA, see 15 U.S.C. §1692d.

19. The Plaintiff has no prior business relationship with the Defendant and advised them to 

stop contacting her over a debt that she considered to be invalid.

20. The Plaintiff, lacking knowledge that she did not have to pay an invalid debt, and fearing 

that legal action would be launched against her, agreed to try and make payment 

arrangements with the Defendant.

21. The Plaintiff entered into a payment plan with the Defendant in an effort to stop the 

telephone harassment.

22. However, due to the dire financial situation that the Plaintiff was in she could not make 

the payments.

23. Soon after the Plaintiff stopped paying the Defendant the telephone harassment began.

24. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any tactic that is unfair or 

unconscionable in their attempt to collect a debt.

25. Setting the Plaintiff up to make monthly payments on a debt that is unenforceable and 

invalid is both unfair and unconscionable, see 15 U.S.C. §1692f.

26. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter dated March 29, 2011 wherein the Defendant 

states that “[w]e have been retained by the above mentioned creditor to present this claim 

on their behalf.”

27. Such language is designed to give a consumer the false impression that certain legal 

ramifications exist if the debt is not paid in full.

28. Such false representation is prohibited by the FDCPA, see 15 U.S.C. §1692e.

29. Due to the number of telephone calls that the Defendant received, she discontinued using 

her cellular telephone.

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
30. Plaintiff contacted the Defendant at her place of work, via telephone, repeatedly even 

after being advised that she could not accept such calls at her place of employment and to 

cease such communication.

31. A debt collector who contacts a consumer at their place of employment after being 

advised that such communication is prohibited by the consumer’s employer, violates 15 

U.S.C. §1692c(a)(3).

32. The actions of the Defendant have caused emotional and financial hardship on the Plaintiff

and therefore were a violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, 

including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1692 d(1), 1692 d(2), 1692 d(5), 1692 f, 1692g, 

amongst others.

Respondeat Superior Liability

33. The acts and omissions of the individual collector, as an agent employed by Defendant, who 

communicated with Plaintiff as further described herein, was committed within the time and 

space limits of the agency relationship with his principal, Defendant.

34. The acts and omissions by this individual employee was incidental to, or of the same general 

nature as, the responsibilities this agent was authorized to perform by Defendant in 

collecting consumer debts.

35. By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiff, this individual collector was 

motivated to benefit her principal, Defendant.

36. Defendant is therefore liable to Plaintiff through the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior for 

the intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and 

federal law by its collection employees, including but not limited to violations of the 

FDCPA and Colorado law, in their attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as 

though fully stated herein.

38. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents constitute numerous and 

multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every one of the 

above-cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., with respect to Plaintiff.

39. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual 

damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to 

$1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorney’s fees and 

costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from Defendant herein.

TRIAL BY JURY

40. Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so 

triable. US Const. amend. 7. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant:

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

For an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against Defendant 

and for Plaintiff;

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
For an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A) against Defendant and for Plaintiff;

For an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant and for Plaintiff; and

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

Respectfully submitted,

s/Troy D. Krenning

Troy D. Krenning, Esq.

Gookin, Krenning & Associates, LLC

501 N. Cleveland Avenue

Loveland, Colorado 80537

(970) 292-8290

Email: troydklaw@msn.com

s/Jill Gookin

Jill Gookin, Esq.

Gookin, Krenning & Associates, LLC

501 N. Cleveland Avenue

Loveland, Colorado 80537

(970) 292-8290

Email: jill@gkalaw.com

Case 1:11-cv-02616-CMA-BNB Document 1 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6