PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kimmel & Silverman, 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 

GREGORY ADAMS, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

MAIN STREET ACQUISITIONS 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL 

(Unlawful Debt Collection Practices)

COMPLAINT

 GREGORY ADAMS (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys, KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C., 

alleges the following against MAIN STREET ACQUISITIONS CORPORATION 

(“Defendant”): 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, 

deceptive, and unfair practices. Plaintiff further alleges a claim for invasion of privacy ancillary 

to Defendant’s collection efforts. 

 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 51846
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 2 -

1

2

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

24

25

3

4

5

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 

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 of the United States. 

16

17

8. Defendant is a national debt collection company located at 3715 DaVinci Court, 

Suite 200, Norcross, Georgia 30092, with a second address at 2877 Paradise Road, Unit 303, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, 89109. 

22

23

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

heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and/or 

insurers. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. Defendant conducts business in the State of New Jersey and therefore, personal 

jurisdiction is established. 

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

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

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Salem, New Jersey, 08079. 

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

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. 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 51847
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

11. 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 that 

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 the 

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

misleading practices, prohibit harassing and abusive tactics, and proscribe unfair or 

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

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

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

substantive heart of the FDCPA lies in three broad prohibitions. First, a “debt collector may not 

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

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

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

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

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

The FDCPA is designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous collectors, whether or not there 

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

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

connection with the collection of a debt. 

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

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

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 51848
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

17

18

19

20

21

23

14

1

16

1

22

1

24

25

19. Defendant, through its agent Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, placed repeated calls 

to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone almost every day, causing Plaintiff to receive, at times, more 

than two (2) to four (4) collection calls a day; and more than ten (10) collection calls a week. 

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. Congress 

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

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

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

collectors. The express purposes of the FDCPA are to “eliminate abusive debt collection 

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

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

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

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

debt from Plaintiff. 

6. The alleged debts at issue arose out of transactions, which were primarily for 

personal, family, or household purposes. 

17. Beginning within one year prior to the filing of this case and continuing until 

August of 2010, Defendant and its agents engaged in debt collection activities seeking payment 

from Plaintiff for an alleged First National Bank of Omaha debt. 

8. Defendant, through its agent Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, harassed Plaintiff by 

making continuous calls to his cellular telephone number and work telephone number. 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 51849
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 5 -

1

3

5

6

7

8

10

13

15

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

2

20

4

21

9

22

11

12

14

16

17

22

. Defendant, through its agent Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, also harassed 

Plaintiff by immediately calling Plaintiff back after a telephone call was terminated. 

. On or about June 22, 2010, Defendant sent correspondence to Plaintiff purporting 

to validate the alleged debt. 

. In its June 22, 2010 letter, Defendant indicated it was seeking to gather 

documentation requested by Plaintiff from its client and would forward the same upon receipt, 

but then confusingly quoted a Fourth Circuit opinion, which indicated it did not have to provide 

copies of bills or evidence of the debt. See Exhibit “A,” Defendant’s June 22, 2010 letter. 

23. This was confusing to Plaintiff who did not then know if Defendant would 

provide him with information regarding the debt in light of its two conflicting statements. See

Exhibit “A.” 

24. Despite its representation that it was gathering additional documentation from its 

client, Defendant failed to ever provide Plaintiff with information from the original creditor. 

25. Further, Defendant’s reference to a legal opinion was deceptive and confusing to 

Plaintiff, as it overshadowed and obfuscated the notice that appeared just below, which indicated 

Plaintiff could seek verification of the debt and/or dispute the debt. See Exhibit “A.” 

26. Defendant’s actions in attempting to collect the alleged debt were harassing, 

abusive and highly deceptive. 

27. Further, based on information and belief, Defendant has failed to pay the required 

Collection Agency Bond. See Exhibit “B,” Collection Agency Bond Status report. 

 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 51850
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 6 -

1

2

6

7

8

9

16

18

19

20

3

4

5

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

21

22

23

24

25

CONSTRUCTION OF APPLICABLE LAW 

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

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

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 

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

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

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

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 

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

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

construed liberally in favor of the consumer.” Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F. 3d 1107 (10th Cir. 

2002). 

30. The FDCPA is to be interpreted in accordance with the “least sophisticated” 

consumer standard. See Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985); Graziano 

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

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

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 

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

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

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

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 51851
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 7 -

1

2

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

collection notices. 

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

Clomon, 988 F. 2d at 1318. 

COUNT I 

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE 

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

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

more of the following ways: 

a. Defendant violated of the FDCPA generally; 

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

connection with the collection of an alleged debt; 

c. Defendant violated § 1692d(5) of the FDCPA, when it caused the Plaintiff’s 

telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously with the intent to harass, annoy 

or abuse Plaintiff; 

d. Defendant violated § 1692e of the FDCPA by using false, deceptive, or 

misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a 

debt; 

e. Defendant violated § 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by using false representations 

or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt; 

f. Defendant violated § 1692f of the FDCPA by using unfair and 

unconscionable means with Plaintiff to collect or attempt to collect a debt; 

g. Defendant acted in an otherwise deceptive, unfair and unconscionable manner 

and failed to comply with the FDCPA. 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 51852
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, GREGORY ADAMS, respectfully prays for a 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 pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. All reasonable attorneys’ fees, witness fees, court costs and other litigation 

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

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, GREGORY ADAMS, demands a jury trial in 

this case. 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.CIV.R.11.2

 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. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

DATED: June 22, 2011 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.. 

By:/s/ 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 

Case 1:11-cv-03577-JEI-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8 Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 1624 Filed 06/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 51853