UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Robert DeSanto,

Plaintiff,

v.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc.; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Robert DeSanto, says by way of Complaint against Defendant, NCO 

Financial Systems, Inc., 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 Plaintiff’s 

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.

PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1
2

4. The Plaintiff, Robert DeSanto (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in 

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

5. Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (“NCO”), is a business entity with an 

address of 507 Prudential Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044, 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 NCO 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. NCO at all times acted by and through one or more of the Collectors.

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

A. The Debt

8. The Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation (the “Debt”) to an 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 NCO for collection, or NCO

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).

B. NCO Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

12. NCO has placed daily calls to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Debt. 

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2
3

13. Plaintiff has informed NCO that he is disabled and cannot currently afford to pay 

the Debt. 

14. Collectors employed by NCO have attempted to persuade Plaintiff to stop making 

payments on his mortgage on several occasions, in an attempt to collect the Debt. 

15. NCO has told Plaintiff that there will be no negative consequences if he decides to 

cease his mortgage payments. 

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

16. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a result of the 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

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

Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional distress, 

fear, frustration and embarrassment. 

18. 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.

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

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

profane and abusive language when speaking with the consumer.

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 3
4

21. 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.

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

employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt.

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

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

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

COUNT II

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

25. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

26. 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.”

27. New Jersey further recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of 

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

28. 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). 

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 4
5

29. 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.

30. As a result of the intrusions and invasions enumerated above, the Plaintiff is 

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

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

wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, the Plaintiff is 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);

4. Statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) & (C);

5. Liquidated damages;

6. Punitive damages; and

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

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 5
6

Dated: April 1, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/Sofia Balile

Sofia Balile, Esq.

Lemberg & Associates LLC

1100 Summer Street

Stamford, CT 06905

Phone: (732) 390-5262

Fax: (203) 653-3424

Case 3:11-cv-01890-MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 04/01/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 6