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) 

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192 

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

A Connecticut Law Firm 

1100 Summer Street 

Stamford, CT 06905 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Johnny Duong 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Johnny Duong, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Genesis Credit Management, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 6
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, Johnny Duong (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, brings 

the following complaint against Genesis Credit Management, LLC (hereafter 

“Defendant”) and alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated 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 Avondale, 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 Sunnyside, Washington, 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 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 6
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 born person allegedly obligated to pay a debt 

asserted to be owed to a creditor other than Defendant. 

9. Plaintiffs 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. Within the last year, Defendant began calling Plaintiff in an attempt to 

collect a debt. 

12. Defendant called with such frequency that the obvious intent was to 

annoy and harass Plaintiff, in violation of the FDCPA. 

13. On or around June 3, 2015, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant regarding 

repayment of the alleged debt and informed Defendant that he would be unable to 

make a payment at that time. 

14. Defendant responded by suggesting that Plaintiff break the law by using 

his mother’s credit card without her permission to make a payment. 

15. Plaintiff refused and Defendant responded by threatening legal action if 

Plaintiff was unable to make an immediate payment. 

Case 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 3 of 6
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 

16. Moreover, Defendant failed to send Plaintiff written notice of the alleged 

debt, informing Plaintiff of his right to dispute the debt, within five (5) days of its 

initial communication. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

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

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

18. 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. 

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

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

20. Defendant engaged in conduct, the natural consequence of which was to 

harass, oppress, or abuse Plaintiff, in connection with the collection of a debt, in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 

21. Defendant caused Plaintiff’s phone to ring or engaged Plaintiff in 

telephone conversations repeatedly or continuously, with the intent to annoy, abuse 

and harass Plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5). 

22. Defendant used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means 

in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 

Case 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 4 of 6
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 

23. Defendant threatened to take action that could not be legally taken or that 

Defendant did not intend to take, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). 

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

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. 

25. Defendant failed to send Plaintiff written notice regarding the alleged 

debt within five (5) days after its initial communication with Plaintiff, in violation of 

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). 

26. The foregoing acts and/or omissions of Defendant constitute numerous 

and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited 

provisions. 

27. Plaintiff has been 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);

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

DATED: September 16, 2015 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Johnny Duong 

Case 2:15-cv-01846-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/16/15 Page 6 of 6