Source: https://www.creditreportproblems.com/palisades-collection-northland-group/
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 05:34:04
Document Index: 442950457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 56', '§ 2270', '§ 201', '§ 1692', '§ 56', '§ 2271', '§ 2271', '§2270']

Complaint Against Palisades Collection and Northland Group Collection
PA Complaint Against Palisades Collection and Northland Group Collection Agencies
This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for Defendants’ violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (hereafter the “FDCPA”), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1,et seq. (hereafter the “NJCFA”), the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. § 2270.1 et seq. (hereafter the “FCEUA”), constituting unfair and deceptive acts and practices under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq. (hereafter the “UTPCPL”), and other common law claims. The laws prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection practices.
Plaintiff John Doe is an adult individual residing in Pennsylvania.
Defendant Palisades Collection L.L.C. (hereafter “Palisades”) is a business entity with its principal office located at 210 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. The principal purpose of Defendant is the collection of debts already in default using the mails and telephone, and Defendant regularly attempts to collect said debts.
Defendant Northland Group, Inc. (hereafter “Northland”) is a business entity with its principal office located at 7831 Glenroy Road, Suite 110, Edina, Minnesota 55439. The principal purpose of Defendant is the collection of debts already in default using the mails and telephone, and Defendant regularly attempts to collect said debts.
At all pertinent times hereto, Defendant was hired to collect a debt relating to an account with HSBC (hereafter the “debt”).
At all times material hereto, Plaintiff did not owe a debt and has never owed a debt to Defendants.
Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff did not owe the debt, on or about June 9, 2008, Defendant Palisades filed a civil complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas against Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the debt. (A true and correct copy of relevant civil complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein.)
Because Plaintiff was not responsible for the debt, Plaintiff was forced to hire attorneys and defend against the lawsuit filed by Defendant Palisades at a substantial out-of-pocket cost to Plaintiff.
On or about July 3, 2008, Plaintiff’s attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit against Plaintiff because Plaintiff was not responsible for the debt. (A true and correct copy of relevant dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein.) Palisades, as the owner of the debt, was aware of this fact.
Notwithstanding the above, Defendant Palisades then hired Defendant Northland to continue to collect the debt from Plaintiff with the intent to annoy abuse and harass Plaintiff, and, on or about October 2, 2010, Defendant Northland sent Plaintiff a dunning letter in an attempt to collect the debt. (A true and correct copy of relevant dunning letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein.)
Defendants acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by communicating with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt when the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt.
Defendants acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by communicating with a non-debtor in connection with the collection of any debt.
Defendants acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.
Defendants acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
Defendants acted in a false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner by engaging in false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
Defendants knew or should have known that their actions violated the FDCPA, FCEUA, and the UTPCPL. Additionally, Defendants could have taken the steps necessary to bring their agent’s actions within compliance of these statutes, but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review those actions to insure compliance with said laws.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has sustained actual damages, including, but not limited to injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, invasion of privacy, damage to Plaintiff’s credit, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional and mental pain and anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to reputation and pecuniary loss and he will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, all to his great detriment and loss.
Count I – ALL DEFENDANTS – Violations of the FDCPA
Defendants violated the FDCPA. Defendant’s violations include, but are not limited to, violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(3), 1692e(10), and 1692f, as evidenced by the following conduct:
(a) Communicating with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt when the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt;
(b) Communicating with any person other than the debtor in connection with the collection of a debt;
(c) Misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt;
(d) Falsely representing or implying that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney;
COUNT II – PALISADES – VIOLATIONS OF THE NJCFA
Both Plaintiff and Defendant Palisades are “persons” as defined by N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1(d) of the NJCFA.
Defendant has violated the NJCFA as they have used and employed unfair and deceptive practices in connection with the debt, including, but not limited to continuing to attempt to collect a debt from Plaintiff that Defendant knows does not belong to Plaintiff despite having previously brought a lawsuit against Plaintiff and that lawsuit having been dismissed because Plaintiff is not responsible for the debt.
Defendants’ business practices constitute unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses and/or misrepresentations in its interactions with Plaintiff and those similarly situated, in violation of the NJCFA.
Plaintiff further suffered ascertainable losses as described herein.
As a result of the violations of the NJCFA, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in the sum of Plaintiff’s actual damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT III – ALL DEFENDANTS – VIOLATION OF THE FCEUA & UTPCPL
Defendants are “debt collectors” as defined by 73 P.S. § 2271.36 of the FCEUA.
The letters sent to Plaintiff by Defendants are “communications” relating to a “debt” as defined by 73 P.S. § 2271.3 of the FCEUA.
Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, as defined by the UTPCPL, by attempting to collect the alleged debt in violation of the FCEUA. Defendants’ violation of the FCEUA and UTPCPL include, but are not limited to, violations of 73 P.S. §2270.4(a), as evidenced by the following conduct:
(e) Engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt; and
Count IV – ALL DEFENDANTS – Invasion of Privacy
Defendants’ conduct, including but not limited to continuing to collect against Plaintiff over a debt he does not owe constitutes an invasion of privacy.