UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

William Hoover, Stephanie Hoover, and 

Merissa Hoover,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Windsor Group; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, William Hoover and Merissa Hoover, say by way of Complaint against 

Defendant, Windsor Group, 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”), and the invasions of Plaintiffs’

personal privacy by Defendant and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt.

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in this action, as all 

such claims arise out of the same case or controversy as Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as Defendant transacts business in the State of New Jersey.

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
2

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiffs, William Hoover and Merissa Hoover (“Plaintiffs”), are adult 

individual residing in Manahawkin, New Jersey, and Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey, respectively,

and each are a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

5. The Defendant Windsor Group (“Windsor”), is a Texas business entity with an 

address of 10670 North Central Expressway, Suite 440, Dallas, Texas 75231, operating as a 

collection agency, and is a “debt collector” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

6. Does 1-10 (the “Collectors”) are individual collectors employed by Windsor and 

whose identities are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. One or more of the Collectors may be 

joined as parties once their identities are disclosed through discovery.

7. Windsor at all times acted by and through one or more of the Collectors.

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

A. The Debt

8. The Plaintiff, Merissa Hoover, incurred a financial obligation (the “Debt”) to 

original creditor (the “Creditor”).

9. The Debt arose from services provided by the Creditor which were primarily for 

family, personal or household purposes and which meets the definition of a “debt” under 

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

10. The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Windsor for collection, or 

Windsor was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt.

11. The Defendants attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in 

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

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
3

B. Windsor Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

12. The Plaintiff, Merissa Hoover, fell behind on her automobile loan payments. 

13. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs repeatedly at least five times a day and in an 

attempt to collect the Debt.

14. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs and in an attempt to collect the Debt and 

failed to inform that Plaintiffs that any information Plaintiffs disclose would be used for 

collection purposes.

15. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs and failed to disclose their identity.

16. The Defendants called to Stephanie Hoover and demanded payment in full or 

otherwise she “will be walking!”

17. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs and demanded information about location of 

the automobile.

18. The Defendants called Merissa Hoover’s brother and sister-in-law, William 

Hoover and Stephanie Hoover, and disclosed information about the Debt. 

19. The Defendants were rude, abusive and condescending when speaking to the 

Plaintiffs, stating to Stephanie Hoover “Ma’am you’re a grown woman! Look it up on the 

computer, the internet, we’re an investigator! You can’t do anything!”

20. Furthermore, the Defendants yelled at Stephanie Hoover, causing her to break 

down into tears, saying “What do you think I'm stupid, like you? Do you think because your 

husband is a correction officer he’s some big deal?”

21. The Defendants called the Plaintiffs and left a message stating: “This is agent 

Huff! Your name has come up in a legal matter. I need a three minute statement from you 

instantly or you can suffer consequences.”

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
4

22. The Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a letter informing them about the 

nature of the Debt of their rights under federal law.

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

23. The Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual damages as a result of 

the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

24. As a direct consequence of the Defendants’ acts, practices and conduct, the 

Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional distress, 

fear, frustration and embarrassment. 

25. The Defendants’ conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in 

degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and 

utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

26. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

27. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(1) in that Defendants 

contacted third parties and failed to identify themselves and further failed to confirm or correct 

location information.

28. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2) in that Defendants 

informed third parties of the nature of the Plaintiff’s debt and stated that the Plaintiff owed a

debt.

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
5

29. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3) in that Defendants 

contacted third parties in regards to the Plaintiff’s debt on numerous occasions, without being 

asked to do so.

30. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) in that Defendants 

communicated with individuals other than the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s attorney, or a credit 

bureau.

31. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) in that Defendants used 

profane and abusive language when speaking with the consumer.

32. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) in that Defendants caused 

a phone to ring repeatedly and engaged the Plaintiff in telephone conversations, with the intent to 

annoy and harass.

33. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6) in that Defendants placed 

calls to the Plaintiff without disclosing the identity of the debt collection agency. 

34. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(1) in that Defendants falsely 

represented to the Plaintiff that it was affiliated with the United States or a government entity.

35. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4) in that Defendants 

threatened the Plaintiff with seizure of his property if the Debt was not paid.

36. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) in that Defendants 

threatened to take legal action, without actually intending to do so.

37. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) in that Defendants 

employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt.

38. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) in that Defendants failed 

to inform the consumer that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt.

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
6

39. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) in that Defendants 

failed to send the Plaintiff a validation notice stating the amount of the Debt.

40. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) in that Defendants 

failed to send the Plaintiff a validation notice stating the name of the original creditor to whom 

the Debt was owed.

41. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) in that Defendants 

failed to send the Plaintiff a validation notice stating the Plaintiff’s right to dispute the Debt 

within thirty days.

42. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4) in that Defendants 

failed to send the Plaintiff a validation notice informing the Plaintiff of a right to have 

verification and judgment mailed to the Plaintiff.

43. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute numerous and 

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

44. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’ violations.

COUNT II

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

45. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

46. The Restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) ascribes liability for intrusion upon 

seclusion where one individual, “intentionally intrudes...upon the solitude or seclusion of 

another, or his private affairs or concerns,” and further states that “[said individual] is subject to 

liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a 

reasonable person.”

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
7

47. New Jersey further recognizes Plaintiffs’ right to be free from invasions of 

privacy. Thus, the Defendants violated New Jersey state law.

48. The Defendants’ telephone calls to the Plaintiff were so persistent and repeated 

with such frequency as to be considered, “hounding [the Plaintiff],” and “a substantial burden to 

[his] existence,” amounting to an invasion of privacy as defined by the Restatement of Torts, 

Second, § 652(b). 

49. The Defendants’ conduct of engaging in the foregoing illegal collection activities 

resulted in multiple invasions of privacy that would be considered highly offensive to a 

reasonable person.

50. As a result of the intrusions and invasions enumerated above, the Plaintiffs are

entitled to actual damages from the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial.

51. All acts of the Defendants and their agents were committed with malice, intent, 

wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages from 

the Defendants. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the Defendants:

1. Actual damages including, but not limited to, the emotional distress the 

Plaintiff has suffered (and continues to suffer) as a result of the intentional, 

reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or 

negligent invasions of privacy pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

2. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A);

3. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(3);

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
8

4. Liquidated damages;

5. Punitive damages; and

6. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

Dated: March 24, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Sofia Balile

Sofia Balile, Esq.

Lemberg & Associates LLC

1100 Summer Street

Stamford, CT 06905

Phone: (917) 981-0849

Fax: (203) 653-3424

Case 3:11-cv-01643-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/24/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8