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, 

Patricia Wells-Krob 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Patricia Wells-Krob, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 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, Patricia Wells-Krob (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, 

brings the following complaint against Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc. (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 Glendale, 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 Roanoke, Virginia, 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-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 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 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. On or around June 9, 2015 Defendant called Plaintiff in an attempt to 

collect the debt. 

12. Plaintiff explained to Defendant that she was on a fixed income and did 

not have the financial means to make repayment of the debt. 

13. Defendant began listing off Plaintiff’s other bills that she makes payment 

towards, specifically, Bank of America. 

14. Defendant implied that Plaintiff shouldn’t be making repayment toward 

Bank of America, but rather paying Defendant instead. 

15. Furthermore, Defendant threatened Plaintiff by stating it was going to 

take her to court due to Defendant’s belief that Plaintiff has the financial means to 

make repayment. 

Case 2:15-cv-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 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. In an attempt to correct Defendant’s assumption that she has the financial 

means to make payment, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was considering 

bankruptcy. 

17. Defendant responded by stating that Plaintiff would not qualify for 

bankruptcy and that she “shouldn’t bother”. 

18. Despite Plaintiff stating she would not make repayment of the debt, 

Defendant continued calling her at an excessive and harassing rate, knowing that the 

calls would not result in collection of the debt. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

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

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

20. 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. 

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

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

22. 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 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 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). 

24. 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. 

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

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. 

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) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c); 

D. Punitive damages; and 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 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 10, 2014 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Patricia Wells-Krob 

Case 2:15-cv-01812-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 6