5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Kimmel & Silvennan, P.C. 

1930 East Marlton Pike, Suite Q29 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 

Telephone: 856-429-8334 

Attorney of Record: Amy Bennecoff (AB0891) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE 


DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 


EFSTRA TIOS HADJIKONSTANTINOU, ) 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 

v. ) Case No.: 

) 

PRESSLER & PRESSLER, L.L.P ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 

) JURY TRIAL 

Defendant ) 

) --------------------------------------­ (Unlawful Debt Collection Practices) 

COMPLAINT 

EFSTRA TIOS HADJIKONSTANTINOU ("Plaintiff'), by his attorneys, KIMMEL 

SILVERMAN, P.C., alleges the following against PRESSLER & PRESSLER, L.L.P. 

("Defendant"): 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs Complaint is based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), which states 

that such actions may be brought and heard before "any appropriate United States district court 

- 1 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 


Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

without regard to the amount in controversy," and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants this court original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws ofthe United States. 

3. Defendant conducts business and has an office in the State of New Jersey and 

therefore, personal jurisdiction is established. 

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(I). 

5. Declaratory relief is available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Bloomfield, New Jersey, 07003. 

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

8. Defendant is a national debt collection company with corporate headquarters 

located at 7 Entin Road, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054. 

9. Defendant is a "debt collector" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), 

and repeatedly contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt. 

10. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors, 

heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

II. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") is a comprehensive statute 

which prohibits a catalog of activities in connection with the collection of debts by third parties. 

See 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The FDCPA imposes civil liability on any person or entity tha 

violates its provisions, and establishes general standards of debt collector conduct, defines abuse 

and provides for specific consumer rights. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. The operative provisions of th 

FDCPA declare certain rights to be provided to or claimed by debtors, forbid deceitful an 

·2· 


PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

misleading practices, prohibit harassing and abusive tactics, and proscribe 

unconscionable conduct, both generally and in a specific list of disapproved practices. 

12. In particular, the FDCPA broadly enumerates several practices considere 

contrary to its stated purpose, and forbids debt collectors from taking such action. 

substantive heart of the FDCPA lies in three broad prohibitions. First, a "debt collector may no 

engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse an 

person in connection with the collection of a debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Second, a "deb 

collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connectio 

with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. And third, a "debt collector may not us 

unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692f 

The FDCP A is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous collectors, whether or not ther 

exists a valid debt, broadly prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection methods, conduct whic 

harasses, oppresses or abuses any debtor, and any false, deceptive or misleading statements i 

connection with the collection of a debt. 

13. In enacting the FDCPA, the United States Congress found that "[t]here i 

abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by man 

debt collectors," which "contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability 

to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a. Congres 

additionally found existing laws and procedures for redressing debt collection injuries to b 

inadequate to protect consumers. 15 U.S.C. § 1692b. 

14. Congress enacted the FDCPA to regulate the collection of consumer debts by deb 

collectors. The express purposes of the FDCP A are to "eliminate abusive debt collectio 

practices by debt collectors, to insure that debt collectors who refrain from using abusive deb 

collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State actio 

to protect consumers against debt collection abuses." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. 

- 3 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 


Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3
---------------------

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 


2 15. At all relevant times, Defendant was attempting to collect an alleged consumer 

3 debt from Plaintiff. 

4 	 16. The alleged debt at issue arose out of transactions, which were primarily for 

personal, family, or household purposes. 

6 17. On or around March 16, 2010, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter. A true 

7 and correct copy of the March 16,2010 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 

8 18. At the top of Defendant's letter is a predominately featured legal letterhead 

9 indicating that the correspondence originates from a law firm. See Exhibit A. 

19. Defendant's letter stated "this is to notify you that Discover Bank has retained 

11 this firm to collect its claim against you for the balance owing on your Discover Bank account # 

12 xxxxxxxxxx88991" in the amount of $7,066.49. See Exhibit A. 

13 20. Being from a law firm, Plaintiff interpreted the content as involving a legal claim 

14 in which he was alleged to be the debtor. 

21. Defendant's letter went on to state; "at this time, no attorney with this firm has 

16 personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account." See Exhibit A. 

17 22. Despite saying that no attorney had personally reviewed the letter, Defendant 

18 informed Plaintiff of the consequences if Defendant's letter was ignored, by stating; "if you fail 

19 to contact this office, our client may consider additional remedies to recover the balance due." 

See Exhibit A. 

21 23. Plaintiff was confused by the apparent contradiction, believing that an attorney 

22 would have to review the facts in order to make a threat of the type Defendant made. 

23 24. The least sophisticated consumer, upon receiving the above communication from 

24 an attorney for a lender, would believe that the debt collection process had entered a phase 

where the lender was proceeding towards litigation to collect an alleged debt. No other 

-4­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

reasonable conclusion could be drawn from the wording used by Defendant. 

25. The statements in Exhibit A have been held to constitute a violation of the 

FDCPA. See: Dawn Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Ka:y, 2010 WL 2431826 (M.D. Pa. 

June 14,2010). 

26. When an attorney announces his involvement, the least sophisticated consumer 

can be fairly said to view the matter as having escalated into a serious and meaningful threat of 

litigation. See: Lesher, 2010 WL 243186*5 

27. Further, in its March 16,2010, letter, Defendant falsely stated to Plaintiff that he 

could dispute the debt or request validation of the debt, and if requested, it would provide 

verification of the debt. See Exhibit A. 

28. Based upon Defendant's statements and the threat of additional collection 

activities, Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant disputing the debt and requesting 

validation. A true and correct copy of the March 18, 2010, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 

"B". 

29. On or about April 7, 2010, Defendant responded to Plaintiff s request for 

validation by sending a copy of the Discover card application, a one page billing statement and a 

computer print-out "Interest Report" to convince Plaintiff that the alleged debt was validated. 

True and correct copies of what Defendant sent are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 

30. Defendant tried to mislead Plaintiff by providing documents which did not 

establish a contractual relationship, nor the terms of the contract upon which the debt was based, 

statements starting with a zero balance, nor even documentation establishing Defendant's right 

to collect monies from Plaintiff. Those papers that were provided were insufficient and 

unsuitable for validation. 

31. Despite not providing good faith validation of the alleged debt, Defendant 

resumed its collection efforts. 

- 5 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

32. To date, nearly one year later and despite threats to the contrary, Defendant has 

2 not pursued additional measures such as filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff; thereby indicating it 

3 did not intend to take the action previously threatened in its March 16, 20 I 0, letter to Plaintiff. 

4 33. Upon information and belief, Defendant sought to collect a debt from Plaintiff 

using means which were intended to place him in fear of adverse consequences which 

6 Defendant never intended to carry out. 


7 
 34. Upon information and belief, Defendant used its status as a law firm to emphasize 

8 

the risk of additional collection measures if Plaintiff did not pay as demanded. 

9 

35. Defendant leveraged the impact of its professional designation "lawyer" and its 

letterhead to create a heightened sense of urgency to pay the amount claimed, even though 

II 

Defendant admittedly failed to review Plaintiff's account. 

12 

36. Upon information and belief, Defendant acted in violation of the FDCPA and 13 

caused the Plaintiff harm. 14 

16 CONSTRUCTION OF APPLICABLE LAW 

17 37. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute. Taylor v. Perrin, Landry, deLaunay & 

18 Durand, 103 F.3d 1232 (5th Cir. 1997). "Because the Act imposes strict liability, a consumer 

19 need not show intentional conduct by the debt collector to be entitled to damages." Russell v. 

Equifax A.R.S., 74 F. 3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp .. 233 

21 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding unintentional misrepresentation of debt collector's legal status 

22 violated FDCPA); Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F. 2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993). 

23 38. The FDCPA is a remedial statute, and therefore must be construed liberally in 

24 favor of the debtor. Sprinkle v. SB&C Ltd., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (W.D. Wash. 2006). The 

remedial nature of the FDCPA requires that courts interpret it liberally. Clark v. Capital Credit 

- 6 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

& Collection Services, Inc., 460 F. 3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006). "Because the FDCPA, like the 

2 Truth in Lending Act (TILA) 15 U.S.C §1601 et seq., is a remedial statute, it should be 

3 construed liberally in favor of the consumer." Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F. 3d 1107 (lOth Cir. 

4 2002). 

39. The FDCPA is to be interpreted in accordance with the "least sophisticated" 

6 consumer standard. See Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (lIth Cir. 1985); Graziano 

7 v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991); Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., 

8 869 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1988). The FDCPA was not "made for the protection of experts, but for 

9 the public - that vast multitude which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, 

and the fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and 

11 experienced does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others less 

12 experienced." Id. The least sophisticated consumer standard serves a dual purpose in that it 

13 ensures protection of all consumers, even naive and trusting, against deceptive collection 

14 practices, and protects collectors against liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of 

collection notices. Clomon, 988 F. 2d at 1318. 

16 

COUNT I 

17 DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE 


FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 


18 

40. In its actions to collect a disputed debt, Defendant violated the FDCPA in one or 

19 

more of the following ways: 

a. Defendant violated of the FDCPA generally; 21 

b. Defendant violated § 1692d of the FDCPA by harassing Plaintiff 22 

connection with the collection of an alleged debt; 23 

c. Defendant violated § 1692e of the FDCP A by using false, deceptive, 0 

24 

misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of 

debt; 

- 7 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

d. Defendant violated § 1692e(3) of the FDCPA by falsely representing 0 

implying that any individual is an attorney or that any communications i 

from an attorney, when it admitted that no attorney reviewed the account; 

e. Defendant violated § 1692e(5) of the FDCPA by threatening to take actio 

that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; 

f. Defendant violated § 1692e(10) of the FDCP A by using false representation 

or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in the form of th 

letter and documents sent to Plaintiff; 

g. Defendant violated § 1692j of the FDCPA by unlawfully designing 

compiling, and furnishing any form knowing that such form would be used t 

create the false belief in a consumer that a person other then the creditor 0 

such consumer is participating in the collection of or in attempt to collect 

debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person i 

not a participant; 

h. Defendant acted in an otherwise deceptive, unfair and unconscionable manne 

and failed to comply with the FDCP A. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, EFSTRATIOS HADJIKONSTANTINOU, respectfully pray for 

judgment as follows: 

a. 	 All actual compensatory damages suffered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

1692k(a)(1); 

b. 	 Statutory damages of $1,000.00 for the violation of the FDCPA pursuan 

to 15 U.S.c. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. 	 All reasonable attorneys' fees, witness fees, court costs and other litigatio 

costs incurred by Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(a)(3); and 

d. 	 Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court. 

- 8 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

1~ 

21 

22 

23 

24 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, EFSTRATIOS HADJIKONSTANTINOU, 

demands a jury trial in this case. 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.CIV.R.ll.2 

I hereby certify pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2 that this matter in controversy is not 

subject to any other action pending in any court, arbitration or administrative proceeding. 

RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, 


DATED: February 25, 2011 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.c.. 


By: lsi Amy L. Bennecoff 

Amy L. Bennecoff 

Attorney ID # AB 0891 

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C 

1930 E. Marlton Pike, Suite Q29 

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 

Phone: (856) 429-8334 

Facsimile (856) 216-7344 

Email: abennecoff@creditlaw.com 

- 9 ­

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 


Case 2:11-cv-01105-WJM -MF Document 1 Filed 02/25/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9