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

23

24

25

22

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 

CLAUDE CASSAGNE, 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

BUREAU OF COLLECTION RECOVERY, 

INC., 

 Defendant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL 

(Unlawful Debt Collection Practices)

COMPLAINT

CLAUDE CASSAGNE (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys, KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C., 

alleges the following against BUREAU OF COLLECTION RECOVERY, INC. (“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. 

 

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 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 2 -

1

2

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. 

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

14

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

3

13

15

17

1

. 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 Plainsboro, New Jersey, 08536. 

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 7575 Corporate Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, 55344. 

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. 

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

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

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 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
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

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 

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 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

13

16

18

19

20

22

25

10

1

12

1

14

15

18. During the June 15, 2011 telephone call, Defendant’s representative failed to 

disclose to Plaintiff the name of the caller, the name of the debt collection company on whose 

behalf the call was placed, that Defendant was a debt collector, and the amount of the debt. 

17

1

21

2

23

24

22. Plaintiff received telephone calls from the following numbers: (202) 607-2744; 

(202) 607-2732; and (202)607-2732; the undersigned has confirmed these numbers belong to 

Defendant. 

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 

15. 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. 

7. On or around June 15, 2011, at 8:21 a.m., Defendant contacted Plaintiff via his 

home telephone in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. 

9. Plaintiff was confused by who Defendant was and indicated Defendant’s calls 

were unwanted, advising Defendant to cease further telephone calls to him. 

20. Plaintiff reiterated this request during subsequent conversations with Defendant. 

1. Despite Plaintiff’s indication that Defendant’s calls were unwanted, and specific 

request that calls cease, Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff via telephone. 

23. Defendant’s efforts to contact Plaintiff were made with the intent to harass, abuse 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 5 -

1 and annoy Plaintiff. 

2

3

4

6

7

8

11

18

19

20

5

9

10

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

12

13

14

15

16

17

21

22

23

24

25

CONSTRUCTION OF APPLICABLE LAW 

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). 

25. 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). 

26. 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 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 6 -

1

2

3

4

experienced.” Id.

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

 The least sophisticated consumer standard serves a dual purpose in that it 

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

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

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

COUNT I 

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE 

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

27. 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 § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by refusing to cease 

communications with Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s explicit request not to 

contact him again; 

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

connection with the collection of an alleged debt; 

d. Defendant violated § 1602d(5) of the FDCPA by placing repeated telephone 

calls to Plaintiff with the intent to harass, annoy and/or abuse Plaintiff; 

e. Defendant violated § 1602d(6) of the FDCPA by placing telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s home telephone without disclosure of the caller’s identity; 

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

misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of a 

debt; 

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

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

- 7 -

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

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

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

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

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

and failed to comply with the FDCPA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CLAUDE CASSAGNE, respectfully pray 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, CLAUDE CASSAGNE, 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. 

Case 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
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

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

DATED: 07/18/11 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 3:11-cv-04082-JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8