UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

NORMAN MORSE, ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF NANCY MORSE, on behalf 

of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), 

-againstCivil Case Number: __________________

CIVIL ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

AND 

DEMAND JURY TRIAL 

JEFFREY G. LERMAN, P.C.; JEFFREY G. 

LERMAN, individually; and JOHN DOES 1-25.

 Defendant(s). 

Plaintiff, Norman Morse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated 

(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by and through his undersigned attorney, alleges against the abovenamed Defendants, Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C.; Jeffrey G. Lerman, individually; and John Does 1-

25, collectively (“Defendants”) their employees, agents, and successors the following: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

- 1 - 

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief

arising from the Defendant’s violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (hereinafter “FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, 

deceptive and unfair practices. More specifically Defendants used their titles, status and positions

as attorneys to make false, deceptive or confusing statements or forms to Plaintiff. Furthermore,

Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff, that they can take no legal action against Plaintiff and to

advise Plaintiff of their intent with respect to its ability to take legal action against him. In 

addition to using their positions and titles as attorneys in order to create a false sense of

heightened urgency and intimidation to it collection practices, without any meaningful review of 

the Plaintiff account. 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This is

an action for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because the acts and

transactions that give rise to this action occurred, in substantial part, in this district. 

DEFINITIONS

4. As used in reference to the FDCPA, the terms “creditor,” “communication” 

“consumer,” “debt,” and “debt collector” are defined in § 803 of the FDCPA and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a. 

PARTIES

5. The FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., which prohibits certain debt collection 

practices provides for the initiation of court proceedings to enjoin violations of the FDCPA and 

to secure such equitable relief as may be appropriate in each case. 

6. Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and is a 

“Consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

7. Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., is a foreign law firm with its primary offices located at 

170 Old Country Road, Suite 600, Mineola, New York 11501. 

8. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., regularly attempts to 

collect debts owed to another. 

9. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., regularly uses the United 

States Postage Service in its attempts to collect debt owed to another. 

- 2 - 

10. Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., is a “Debt Collector” as that term is defined by 15 

U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2
11. Jeffrey G. Lerman, is a foreign attorney who is not licensed to practice law in the 

State of New Jersey. 

12. Jeffrey G. Lerman’s, primary offices are located at 170 Old Country Road, Suite 

600, Mineola, New York 11501. 

13. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey G. Lerman, regularly attempts to collect

debts owed to another. 

14. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey G. Lerman, regularly uses the United States 

Postage Service in its attempts to collect debt owed to another. 

15. Jeffrey G. Lerman, is a “Debt Collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(6). 

16. John Does 1-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the 

purpose of substituting names of defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery and

should be made parties to this action. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP”), on behalf of himself and all consumers and their 

successors in interest (the “Class”), who have received debt collection letters and/or notices from

the Defendants which are in violation of the FDCPA, as described in this Complaint.

18. This Action is properly maintained as a statewide class action. The Class consists

of: 

- 3 - 

• All New Jersey consumers who received collection letters and/or notices from

the Defendants that contained at least one of the alleged violations arising 

from the Defendants’ violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3
• The Class period begins one year to the filing of this Action.

19. The Class satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23 of the FRCP for maintaining a

class action: 

• Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable because there are hundreds and/or thousands of 

persons who have received debt collection letters and/or notices from the 

Dufek that violate specific provisions of the FDCPA. Plaintiff is complaining

of a standard form letter and/or notice that is sent to hundreds of persons; 

• There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which 

predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member. These 

common questions of law and fact include, without limitation: 

a. Whether Defendants violated various provisions of the FDCPA; 

b. Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendants’ 

conduct; 

c. Whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are 

entitled to restitution as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing and if 

so, what is the proper measure and appropriate statutory formula to 

be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and 

d. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or 

injunctive relief.

- 4 - 

• Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class, which all arise from the same 

operative facts and are based on the same legal theories. 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4
• Plaintiff has no interest adverse or antagonistic to the interest of the other 

members of the Class. 

• Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the Class and has

retained experienced and competent attorneys to represent the Class. 

• A Class Action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the claims herein asserted. Plaintiff anticipates that no unusual 

difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. 

• A Class Action will permit large numbers of similarly situated persons to 

prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously and without 

the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would 

engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of relatively small 

claims by many Class members who could not otherwise afford to seek legal 

redress for the wrongs complained of herein. Absent a Class Action, class 

members will continue to suffer losses of statutory protected rights as well as 

monetary damages. If Defendants’ conduct is allowed proceed without 

remedy they will continue to reap and retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten

gains. 

• Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class,

thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding 

declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

- 5 - 

20. Plaintiff is the Administrator of his late wife, Nancy Morse’s estate. 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5
21. Prior to her death Ms. Morse was obligated to Columbia Presbyterian Department

of Neurology (“Columbia”) in the amount of $99.87. 

22. Said amount became past due prior to February 25, 2011. 

23. On or before February 25, 2011 Columbia referred the past due account to 

Defendants for the purpose of collecting the past due amount. 

24. On or about February 25, 2011, Defendants caused to be delivered to Plaintiff a 

letter attempting to collect the past due debt. A copy of said letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit 

A. 

25. Upon receipt, Plaintiff read said letter. 

26. The letterhead read, “Law Office of Jeffrey C. Lerman, P.C.” 

27. The letterhead also contained the following email address: jlerman@lawyers.com

28. The letterhead also contained the telephone number (516) 742-9282. 

29. The first paragraph of the letter states in part, “no attorney associated with this

firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.” 

30. The last paragraph of the letter states, “If you have any questions, you may

contact Jeffrey G. Lerman at (516) 742-9282...” 

31. The letter is unsigned. 

32. The signature line at the bottom of the letter states, “Law Office of Jeffrey G. 

Lerman, P.C.” 

33. Said letter is a “communication” relating to a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(2). 

- 6 - 

34. At all pertinent times hereto, Defendants were collecting an alleged debt relating 

to a consumer transaction, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5). 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6
35. Defendants communicated with Plaintiff on or one year before the date of this

action, in connection with collection efforts, by letters or other documents, with regard to the

alleged debt.

36. Exhibit A in bold face font states in relevant part, “This firm is a debt collector. 

We are attempting to collect a debt, and any information obtained will be used for that 

purpose”

37. Upon receipt of this letter, Plaintiff believed that an attorney was involved in the 

collection of the alleged debt. 

38. Upon receipt of this letter, Plaintiff believed that an attorney could take legal 

action against him.

39. Upon receipt of this letter, Plaintiff believed that an attorney would take legal 

action against him.

40. At all times Plaintiff believed that if payment was not made, then legal action

could and in fact, would be taken against him.

41. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendants failed to make clear to 

Plaintiff that it has no authority to take legal action in New Jersey. 

42. Defendants actions as described herein are part of a pattern and practice used to 

collect consumer debts.

43. Defendants conduct is unfair and/or unconscionable because consumers believe 

that attorneys either are or will be involved in collection of the alleged debt. 

- 7 - 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7
COUNT I 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

44. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 as if the

same were set forth at length herein. 

45. Collection letters and/or notices such as those sent by Defendants, are to be 

evaluated by the objective standard of the hypothetical “least sophisticated consumer.” 

46. Defendants violated Sections 1692d, 1692e(5) and e(10), and 1692f of the

FDCPA by failing to advise consumers, such as Plaintiff, that they can take no legal action 

against him. 

47. Defendants violated Sections 1692d, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA by

failing to advise consumers of their intent with respect to its ability to take legal action against 

them. 

48. Defendants violated Sections 1692e(3), e(10) and 1692j of the FDCPA by using 

his title, status and positions as attorney to make false, deceptive or confusing statements or

forms to consumers. 

49. Defendants violated Sections 1692d, 1692e(3), e(5), e(10), and 1692f, of the

FDCPA by using the authority and credibility created by its letterhead to collect debts and/or

convey the threat of litigation, without any meaningful review of the consumer’s account. 

50. Defendants violated Sections 1692d, 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA by using its 

position and title as attorneys in order to create a false sense of heightened urgency and 

intimidation to it collection practices, without any meaningful review of the consumer’s account. 

- 8 - 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8
(a) Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a Class Action and 

certifying Plaintiff as Class representative and, Joseph K. Jones, Esq., as Class Counsel; 

(b) Issuing a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining Defendants,

their employees, agents and successors from, inter alia, engaging in conduct and practices that

are in violation of the FDCPA; 

(c) Issuing a declaratory Order requiring Defendants to make corrective

disclosures; 

(d) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages; 

(e) Awarding Plaintiff costs of this Action, including reasonable attorneys’

fees and expenses; 

(f) Awarding pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest; and 

(g) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class such other and further relief as this Court 

may deem just and proper. 

Dated: Fairfield, New Jersey 

March 10, 2011 

 /s/__Joseph K. Jones____________________ 

 Joseph K. Jones (JJ-5509) 

 Law Offices of Joseph K. Jones, LLC 

 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 

 Fairfield, New Jersey 07004 

 (973) 227-5900 

 (973) 244-0019 facsimile 

 jkj@legaljones.com

 

- 9 - 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests a 

trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

 

/s/__Joseph K. Jones____________________ 

 Joseph K. Jones 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.2

I, Joseph K. Jones, the undersigned attorney of record for Plaintiff, do hereby 

certify to my own knowledge and based upon information available to me at my office, the

matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action now pending in any court or in any 

arbitration or administrative proceeding. 

 

Dated: March 10, 2011 

 

 /s/__Joseph K. Jones____________________ 

 Joseph K. Jones 

- 10 - 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10
Exhibit 

A 

Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11
Case 2:11-cv-01369-SRC -MAS Document 1 Filed 03/10/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12