UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Rose Long,

Plaintiff,

v.

Pressler & Pressler L.L.P.; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Rose Long, says by way of Complaint against Defendant, Pressler & 

Pressler L.L.P., 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.

Case 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1
2

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiff, Rose Long (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in Jersey 

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

5. Defendant Pressler & Pressler L.L.P. (“Pressler”), is a New Jersey business entity 

with an address of 7 Entin Road, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-9944, 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 Pressler 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. Pressler 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 the 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 Pressler for collection, or 

Pressler 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 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2
3

B. Pressler Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

12. The Defendants called Plaintiff and refused to identify themselves.

13. The Defendants called Plaintiff’s place of employment in an attempt to collect the 

Debt, after the Plaintiff asked them not to do so.

14. The Defendants called Plaintiff’s job and disclosed information about the Debt to 

Plaintiff’s co-worker.

15. The Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of her rights under state and federal 

law by written correspondence within five days after initial contact, including the right to dispute 

the Debt.

16. Furthermore, when the Plaintiff asked for validation of the Debt, the Defendants 

said they did not have to show any proof.

17. The Defendants were rude and abusive when speaking with the client. They said 

“You are just like everyone else who is trying to escape from paying your bills.”

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

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

Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

19. 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. 

20. 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.

Case 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3
4

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

contacted the Plaintiff at a place and during a time known to be inconvenient for the Plaintiff.

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

contacted the Plaintiff at his place of employment, knowing that the Plaintiff’s employer 

prohibited such communications.

27. 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.

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

profane and abusive language when speaking with the consumer.

Case 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4
5

29. 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. 

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

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

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

COUNT II

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein.

37. 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 

Case 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5
6

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

reasonable person.”

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

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

39. 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). 

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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);

Case 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6
7

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

§ 1692k(a)(3);

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: April 25, 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 2:11-cv-02333-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 04/25/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7