Source: https://www.thelangelfirm.com/debt-collector-list/rubin-rothman-llc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:19:47+00:00

Document:
The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York collection lawsuits brought by Rubin & Rothman, LLC. In appropriate cases, we may also take action against Rubin & Rothman for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.
The Langel Firm can defend you, call (888) 271-7109.
Rubin & Rothman often represents National Collegiate Student Loan Trust.
Rubin & Rothman sued our client on behalf of DaimlerChrysler and obtained a default judgment for a repossession deficiency. After suffering years of garnishments, and two pro se attempts at vacating default judgment, The Langel Firm vigorously attacked the judgment based on the glaring falsities of the affidavit of service. Among other misrepresentations we alleged was the process server's claim that the recipient of the summons and complaint was Caucasian, when in fact she is black. Rubin and Rothman folded and agreed to vacate the judgment and discontinue the case. The Langel Firm then sued the process server and the process serving company for fraud. DaimlerChrysler Financial v. D. H. 16716/06 (Supreme Court, Westchester County).
After a contentious traverse hearing, The Langel Firm disproved the possibility of valid service of a Rubin & Rothman lawsuit. The process server, as many do, alleged facts that were physically impossible. GE Money Bank v. M.B., # 60616/10 (Civil Court, New York County).
We sued Rubin & Rothman because its collector falsely represented it could sue her without first verifying her written dispute letter. Any collection activity, including a collection lawsuit, violates the cessation provision of FDCPA § 1692g(b). We also argued that misstating the law to unrepresented person with interests in direct conflict violates New York attorney rules of ethics. The case is S. M. v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 12-CIV-0071 (EDNY 2012).
In K.S. v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC 12-CV-4854 (EDNY 2012), we sued Rubin & Rothman for suing our client in an improper county and garnishing wages based on that defective lawsuit.
After trial in this case, the court determined as a matter of law that Rubin & Rothman violated the FDCPA by leaving two voicemails on the debtor's mother's answering machine. Rubin & Rothman had no reason to do so, especially because 1) the debtor did not live with her mother; 2) the debtor never gave Rubin & Rothman her mother's phone number, or ever used it in connection with the underlying debt; 3) public records did not connect the debtor to her mother's address; and, 4) the debtor never authorized Rubin to talk to her mother. Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 08-civ-66A (WDNY, 2010).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1692
 v. 
 v. 
 v.