David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN: 026059)

david@westcoastlitigation.com

Hyde & Swigart

2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (602) 265-3332

Facsimile: (602) 230-4482

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kascha Neff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

INTRODUCTION

1. Kascha Neff, (Plaintiff), through Plaintiff's attorneys, brings this action to 

challenge the actions of National Credit Audit Corporation, (“Defendant”), 

with regard to attempts by Defendant to unlawfully and abusively collect a 

debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, and this conduct caused Plaintiff damages.

2. Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the exception 

of those allegations that pertain to a plaintiff, which Plaintiff alleges on 

personal knowledge.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 1 of 7 -

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

Kascha Neff

 Plaintiff,

v.

National Credit Audit Corporation

 Defendant.

Case No: ________________

Complaint For Damages

Jury Trial Demanded

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 7
3. While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint 

alleges violations of the statutes cited in their entirety.

4. Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendant took place 

in Arizona.

5. Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and 

Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such 

specific violation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Jurisdiction of this Court arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692(k), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for supplemental state claims.

7. This action arises out of Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection 

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

8. Because Defendant does business within the State of Arizona, personal 

jurisdiction is established.

9. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

10. At all times relevant, Defendant conducted business within the State of 

Arizona.

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of Phoenix, State of 

Arizona.

12. Defendant is located in the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas.

13. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt, and is a 

consumer‚ as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

14. Defendant is a person who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or 

the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of 

debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a 

debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 2 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 7
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Alleged Debt

15. Sometime before November 17, 2015, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred 

certain financial obligations.

16. These financial obligations were primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes and are therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(5).

17. Sometime thereafter, but before November 17, 2015, Plaintiff allegedly fell 

behind and defaulted on the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt. 

18. Plaintiff currently disputes this debt, as she believes none of the charges by 

the original creditor are valid and are not owed. 

19. Subsequent to the default, but before November 17, 2015, the alleged debt 

was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred, to Defendant for collection.

20. On or about November 17, 2015, Defendant mailed a dunning letter to 

Plaintiff. A few days later, Plaintiff received that letter.

21. This communication to Plaintiff was a “communication” as that term is 

defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2), and an “initial communication” consistent 

with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

Collection Abuse

22. On or about December 8, 2015, Defendant’s agent “MJ” called Plaintiff in an 

attempt to collect the debt. 

23. During this call, Plaintiff became upset by the call and Defendant collecting 

an amount not owed, so Plaintiff disconnected the call. 

24. Despite Defendant’s agent knowing Plaintiff did not want to talk to her and 

that Plaintiff disconnected the call, Defendant’s agent MJ immediately called 

back Plaintiff and left a voicemail threatening to report the debt on Plaintiff’s 

credit report.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 3 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 7
25. Through this conduct, Defendant communicated with the consumer in 

connection with the collection of a debt at a time or place known or which 

should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. Consequently, 

Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1).

26. Through this conduct, Defendant engaged in conduct the natural consequence 

of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection with the 

collection of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d.

27. Through this conduct, Defendant caused a telephone to ring or engaged a 

person in telephone conversations repeatedly or continuously with intent to 

annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. Consequently, 

Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).

28. On or about December 8, 2015, well within the thirty-day period described in 

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a), Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing, that this alleged 

debt, or some portion of it, was disputed.

29. Plaintiff sent this notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, and 

Defendant’s agent “Mike Davis” signed for the dispute letter on December 

14, 2015. 

30. Despite receiving Plaintiff’s dispute letter, Defendant continued to collect 

from Plaintiff.

31. On or about December 17, 2015, Defendant sent Plaintiff another collection 

letter. 

32. By communicating with Plaintiff by mail before validating the debt, as 

required pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b), Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692g. Because this communication did not comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

33. In Defendant’s December 17, 2015 collection letter, Defendant falsely stated 

that Plaintiff, “failed to respond in a time manner.” Defendant went on to state 

that Defendant “assume that the above referenced account is a valid debt, but 

you are refusing to pay.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 4 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 7
34. Through this conduct, Defendant used a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. 

Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(10).

35. Through this conduct, Defendant made a false representation concerning the 

character, amount, or legal status of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

36. Additionally, Defendant failed to wait the full thirty day dispute period prior 

to sending this second collection letter. 

Unlicensed Debt Collector

37. Defendants are engaged in the business of attempting to collect debts in the 

State of Arizona. The debts that are pursued by Defendants are debts that have 

been allegedly acquired by Defendants after the debts are in default. 

38. Defendants do not hold a current or even an expired license to act as a debt 

collection agency in the State of Arizona as required by A.R.S. 32-1021. 

39. Defendants have and continue to act as a debt collection agency in Arizona. 

40. Defendants willfully and knowingly acted as a debt collection agency in 

Arizona without a license. The Defendants and all persons are presumed to 

know the law. 

41. Through this conduct, Defendants used a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. 

Consequently, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(10).

42. Through this conduct, Defendants threatened to take action that cannot legally 

be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Consequently, Defendants 

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

43. Through this conduct, Defendants were collecting an amount (including any 

interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) when 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 5 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 7
such amount was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt 

or permitted by law. Consequently, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f(1).

44. Through this conduct, Defendants engaged in conduct the natural 

consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection 

with the collection of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692d.

Damages

45. As a result of Defendants’ abusive conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages 

in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress type damages, which 

manifested in symptoms including but not limited to: stress, anxiety, worry, 

restlessness, irritability, embarrassment, loss of sleep, shame, feelings of 

hopelessness, and helplessness all impacting her job and personal 

relationships.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA)

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 ET SEQ.

46. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs.

47. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations 

of the FDCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the abovecited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

48. As a result of each and every violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

any 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.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 6 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 6 of 7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant, and 

Plaintiff be awarded damages from Defendant, as follows:

• An award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

• An award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(A);

• An award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).

49. Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 

America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

 Hyde & Swigart

Date: December 22, 2015 By: /s/ David J. McGlothlin 

 David J. McGlothlin

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 - 7 of 7 -

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

Case 2:15-cv-02607-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/22/15 Page 7 of 7