UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

___________________________________

)

SHANE AND STEPHANIE ) Case Number

GOODEN, h/w )

)

Plaintiff )

) CIVIL COMPLAINT

vs. )

)

PENTAGROUP FINANCIAL, LLC ) 

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant )

___________________________________ )

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Shane and Stephanie Gooden, h/w, by and through 

their undersigned counsel, Bruce K. Warren, Esquire and Brent F. Vullings, Esquire of 

Warren & Vullings, LLP, complaining of Defendant, and respectfully avers as follows:

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs, Shane and Stephanie Gooden, h/w are adult natural persons and 

brings this action for actual and statutory damages and other relief against Defendant for 

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

(“FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and 

unfair practices.

II. JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1337.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1
3. Venue in this District is proper in that the Defendant has an address in this 

District.

III. PARTIES

4. Plaintiffs, Shane and Stephanie Gooden, h/w, are adult natural persons

with a mailing address at P.O. Box 1285, Nixa, MO 65714. At all times material and 

relevant hereto, Plaintiffs are “consumers” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a 

(2).

5. Defendant, Pentagroup Financial, LLC (“Defendant”), at all times relevant 

hereto, is and was a corporation engaged in the business of collecting debt within the 

State of Missouri and the State New Jersey with a New Jersey address of 820 Bear 

Tavern Road, Trenton, NJ 08628.

6. Defendant is engaged in the collection of debts from consumers using the 

telephone and mail. Defendant regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be 

due to another. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(6). 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. In or around June 2010, Plaintiffs began receiving phone calls from 

Defendant regarding an alleged debt due to Chase Bank in the amount of $8,953.99.

8. Defendant contacted a family member of the Plaintiff, Shane leaving a 

message on the answering machine stating that Defendant was a collection agency calling 

for the Plaintiff, Shane.

9. On another occasion, Defendant attempted to contact the Plaintiff, Shane 

at the Plaintiff, Shane’s place of employment.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2
10. Defendant used the wrong extension to reach the Plaintiff, Shane and 

spoke with a co-worker telling the co-worker that Defendant was calling in regard to an 

outstanding debt and continued to speak with the co-worker for approximately three 

minutes.

11. Plaintiffs received a letter from Defendant dated August 17, 2010

regarding the alleged debt.

12. In or around August 2010, Plaintiffs entered into a monthly payment 

agreement with Defendant for a settlement of $3,760.00.

13. Plaintiffs’ first payment in the amount of $240.00 was paid in October 

2010.

14. Plaintiffs paid Defendant in a timely manner, $120.00 on November 26th

and $120.00 on December 26th with their next payment of $120.00 due on January 28, 

2011.

15. Plaintiffs made an agreement with Defendant that after the January 

payment, Plaintiffs would call and discuss a settlement payout for the remainder.

16. The Plaintiff, Shane was going through a background check for 

employment and needed to show proof that he was paying on his debts. 

17. On or around November 23, 2010, the Plaintiff, Stephanie contacted 

Defendant and asked Defendant to send Plaintiffs information regarding payments made 

and proof of the payment agreement.

18. The Plaintiff, Stephanie spoke with Defendants account manager, “Charise 

Benjamin” who never mini-Mirandized the Plaintiff, Stephanie.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3
19. The Plaintiff, Stephanie asked “Charise Benjamin” for copies of Plaintiffs 

payment arrangements and payments that have been drafted from Plaintiffs’ account. 

“Charise Benjamin” replied to the Plaintiff, Stephanie’s request by telling her, “We

cannot do that, we’ve already sent the letters once.”

20. The Plaintiff, Stephanie told “Charise Benjamin” that Plaintiffs no longer 

had copies of the records and needs Defendant to resend them but “Charise Benjamin” 

replied, “It’s not my fault you lost the paperwork and we are only required to send it 

once!”

21. The Plaintiff then called Defendant back in hopes to speak with another 

agent of Defendant but instead was transferred back to “Charise Benjamin.”

22. Defendant’s agent “Charise Benjamin” would not work with the Plaintiff, 

Stephanie and continued to deny the Plaintiff, Stephanie’s request for the paperwork.

23. The Plaintiff, Stephanie was upset by the attitude “Charise Benjamin” 

gave the Plaintiff, Stephanie at which point the Plaintiff, Stephanie proceed to ask 

“Charise Benjamin” if she could be transferred to someone “more competent.”

24. The Plaintiff, Stephanie’s comment angered Defendant’s agent, “Charise 

Benjamin” even more causing “Charise Benjamin” to yell at the Plaintiff, Stephanie, 

“How dare you call me incompetent, don’t talk to me like you talk to your kids!” and 

proceed to hang up on the Plaintiff, Stephanie.

25. The Plaintiff, Stephanie made a third attempt to speak with an agent of 

Defendant other than “Charise Benjamin.”

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4
26. The Plaintiff, Stephanie was again connected to “Charise Benjamin” and 

when the Plaintiff, Stephanie asked to be transferred to a manager, “Charise Benjamin” 

told the Plaintiff, Stephanie that the manager was not in.

27. Defendant’s agent, “Charise Benjamin” continued on to say, “Notice how 

you’re always being transferred to me?! Well that’s because I’M your account 

manager!”

28. The Plaintiff, Stephanie then asked “Charise Benjamin” for the manager’s 

extension so that the Plaintiff, Stephanie could leave a message. “Charise Benjamin” told 

the Plaintiff, Stephanie that she did not know the manager’s extension and proceeded to 

hang up.

29. Defendant called Plaintiffs back three times in a row after the conversation

but the Plaintiff, Stephanie did not pick up.

30. The Plaintiff, Stephanie decided to try one last time to contact a manager 

and when she called back, Defendant’s receptionist transferred the Plaintiff, Stephanie to 

“Mr. Michael.”

31. The Plaintiff, Stephanie explained the issue to “Mr. Michael” and was told 

that he will “pull up” copies and send them to Plaintiffs.

32. Defendant’s agent, “Mr. Michael” then continued on to threaten the 

Plaintiff, Stephanie that Plaintiffs were “high suit risk” and that Plaintiffs can be sued at 

any time since they were only making “bottom of the barrel” payments which is not 

enough to keep the original creditor from suing and that Plaintiffs should pay more to 

keep from being sued.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5
33. The Plaintiff, Stephanie then responded to “Mr. Michael’s” statement, 

“Your company accepted the payment terms and they were the ones that presented us 

with these terms and allowed us to accept them.”

34. The Plaintiff, Stephanie then went on to tell “Mr. Michael” that Plaintiffs 

made the payments as a “good faith” gesture to Chase and that Plaintiffs are going to pay 

the alleged debt but cannot afford the sum of $3,760.67 at this time.

35. Plaintiffs payments are scheduled until January 28, 2011 and the Plaintiff, 

Stephanie does not understand why Defendant would threaten Plaintiffs claiming that 

Plaintiffs are “high suit risk.”

36. On or around November 24, 2010, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter in 

compliance with the Plaintiff, Stephanie’s request, however, Defendant failed to provide 

any of the information in which Plaintiffs had specifically sought.

37. The Defendant knew or should have known that their actions violated the 

FDCPA. Additionally, Defendant could have taken the steps necessary to bring their and 

their agent’s actions within compliance of the FDCPA, but neglected to do so and failed 

to adequately review those actions to insure compliance with the law.

38. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through it 

agents, servants and/or employees, who were acting with the scope and course of their 

employment and under the direct supervision and control of Defendant herein.

39. At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of Defendant as well as its 

agents, servants and/or employees, was malicious, intentional, willful, reckless, negligent 

and in wanton disregard for federal and state law and the rights of the Plaintiffs herein.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6
40. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained actual 

damages, including, but not limited to, injury to Plaintiffs’ reputation, invasion of 

privacy, damage to Plaintiffs’ credit, out-of-pocket expenses, physical, emotional and 

mental pain and anguish and pecuniary loss and she will continue to suffer same for an 

indefinite time in the future, all to her great detriment and loss.

COUNT I – FDCPA

41. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

42. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was attempting to collect an 

alleged debt which was incurred by the Plaintiffs for personal, family or household 

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

43. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute violations of the FDCPA, 

including but not limited to, violations of:

§§ 1692b(1): Contact of Third Party: Failed to identify 

themselves, or failed to state that collector is 

confirming or correcting location information

§§ 1692b(2): Contact of Third Party: Stated that the consumer 

owes any debt

§§ 1692c(b): With anyone except consumer, consumer’s 

attorney, or credit bureau concerning the debt

§§ 1692d: Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to 

harass, oppress, or abuse any person

§§ 1692d(2): Profane language or other abusive language

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7
§§ 1692d(5): Caused the phone to ring or engaged any person in 

telephone conversations repeatedly

§§ 1692e: Any other false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the debt 

collection

§§ 1692e(5): Threaten to take any action that cannot legally be 

taken or that is not intended to be taken

§§ 1692e(10): Any false representation or deceptive means to 

collect a debt or obtain information about a 

consumer

§§ 1692e(11): Communication fail to contain the mini-Miranda 

warning: “This is an attempt to collect a debt... 

communication is from a debt collector.”

§§ 1692f: Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or 

attempt to collect the alleged debt

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully prays that judgment be entered against the 

Defendant, Pentagroup Financial, LLC for the following:

a. Actual damages;

b. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

c. Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, plus costs of suit; and

d. Such additional and further relief as may be appropriate or that the 

interests of justice require.

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
V. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as to all issues herein.

Respectfully submitted,

WARREN & VULLINGS, LLP

Date: December 30, 2010 BY: /s/ Bruce K. Warren

Bruce K. Warren, Esquire

BY: /s/ Brent F. Vullings

Brent F. Vullings, Esquire

Warren & Vullings, LLP

1603 Rhawn Street

Philadelphia, PA 19111

215-745-9800 Fax 215-745-7880

Attorneys’ for Plaintiff

Case 3:11-cv-00010-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 01/03/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9