Consumer complaint received 2022-03-23
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: Pressler & Pressler, LLP (OH)

I am filing a complaint over XXXX debt collection cases in which I have been a victim of illegal and predatory debt collection practices perpetrated by the now defunct law firm of Pressler & Pressler LLP in New Jersey. My cases are # XXXX & XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, NJ ) In XXXX XXXX Pressler & Pressler and two of the firms partners, were named in a consent order ( 2016-CFPB-0009 ) issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to stop churning out unfair and deceptive debt collection lawsuits based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The consent orders bar the companies and individuals from illegal practices that can deceive or intimidate consumers, such as filing lawsuits without determining if debts in question are valid. The consent order was issued in conjunction with a stipulation signed by the law firms partners acknowledging their agreement to the facts upon which the consent order was based and issued. 

The alleged debts in both of the cases Ive listed here are part of the reorganized law firms alleged continued improper practices, and both cases were filed during a five-year period of compliance monitoring indicated in the consent order, effective the date of the consent order, during which time the law firm was required to produce specific documentation and other filing requirements every time they filed suit, and they did not do so in either of these cases ( see item # 44 on page 18 of the Consent XXXXrder ). In both cases, plaintiffs counsel knew that I had moved away, but improperly filed suit in New Jersey, knowing I would not only NOT get served, but I would not likely make an appearance.

I only learned of these matters because the subsequent default judgements were discovered during a Title Search conducted while I was preparing to sell my house in New Jersey. I immediately filed motions to vacate in both cases, arguing improper service and lack of jurisdiction. In one of the cases, plaintiff 's counsel ( the decedent firm of Pressler & Pressler ) filed several motions arguing against my motion to vacate and the presiding judge agreed to oral arguments on the matter. Appearances in this matter were all held remotely, due to COVID, but because I was a pro se defendant ( and despite filing everything electronically ), my notice with instructions for how to log in for the appearance was mailed to me instead of emailed. Because it's just my luck, I was away for a work conference when the notice was mailed and would not be returning until the day AFTER the oral argument. I called in to the Court that morning, and even left a message for the presiding Judge indicating that I never received the instructions for how to join. Nobody in the clerks office seemed to know how I could join. So, of course, they marked me as a no-show, and my motion was denied.

What the Judge didnt know was that I had recently received additional information from a colleague at the law firm where I was working which alerted me to this CFPB consent order and that I was prepared to bring up during these oral arguments as a reason to have the judgement invalidated, because Pressler had very obviously ignored the filing requirements outlined in the consent order, which they were still bound to operate under until XX/XX/2021. 

Marked as a no-show for the oral arguments, the judge refused my request for another hearing and would not accept another motion ( or hear my new evidence ) so I was unable to get the judgements vacated. So much for New Jersey 's standard to vacate a judgment giving significant latitude to the Judges to ensure fairness of justice for all parties. Since then, I have escalated both of these matters to appeals within the New Jersey circuit, because the presiding Judge in my cases did not hold Pressler accountable for the requirements they were obligated to fulfill under the CFPB Consent Order, and when brought to his attention, still refused to acknowledge the issue. 

Attached, for your convenience, is the amended motion to vacate that I intended to introduce if I could have participated in the oral arguments or if the Judge had just granted my request for a new hearing. It outlines specifically how Pressler violated due process and blatantly ignored the requirements outlined in the CFPB consent order.