Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/122900199/Tackwell-v-Tate-Kirlin-Associates-Inc-FDPCA-Debt-Collector-Complaint
Timestamp: 2015-04-19 14:36:05
Document Index: 681642462

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692']

P. 1Tackwell v Tate & Kirlin Associates Inc FDPCA Debt Collector ComplaintTackwell v Tate & Kirlin Associates Inc FDPCA Debt Collector ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 13|Likes: 0Published by ghostgripMore info:Published by: ghostgrip on Jan 30, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/122900199/Tackwell-v-Tate-Kirlin-Associates-Inc-FDPCA-Debt-Collector-Complaint12/17/2013pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: SHEILA TACKWELL, Plaintiff, v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). 2. This action arises out of the Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter the “FDCPA”).
VENUE 3. Venue is proper in this Judicial District. 4. The acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in this Judicial District. 5. The Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District. 6. The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Sheila Tackwell is a natural person. 8. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Northglenn, County of Adams, State of Colorado. Case 1:11-cv-03384-RPM-KLM Document 1 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9
2 9. The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 10. The Plaintiff is a “any person” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1692d preface. 11. Defendant Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation operating from an address at 2810 Southampton Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19154. 12. The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is National Registered Agents Inc., 1535 Grant Street, Suite 140, Denver, Colorado, 80203. 13. The Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 14. The Defendant is licensed as a collection agency by the state of Colorado. 15. The principal purpose of the Defendant is the collection of debts using the mails and telephone. 16. The Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due another. 17. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another that arose out of transactions in which the money, property or services which are the subject of the transactions are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 18. Sometime before 2011 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes namely an amount due and owing on personal account owed to Crown Asset Management / GECC / Lowes Consumer Card (hereinafter the “Account”). 19. The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). Case 1:11-cv-03384-RPM-KLM Document 1 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 9
3 20. The Account went into default with Crown Asset Management / GECC / Lowes Consumer Card. 21. After the Account went into default the Account was placed or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for collection. The Defendant’s account number for the Account is 18182820. 22. The Plaintiff disputes the Account. 23. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication on the Account. 24. The Defendant’s collector(s) were employee(s) of the Defendant at all times mentioned herein. 25. The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its employee(s). 26. In December 2011 the Plaintiff received a letter via US Mail from the Defendant on the Account dated December 5, 2011 that invited the Plaintiff to call the Defendant to discuss the Account. 27. On December 14, 2011 the Plaintiff called the Defendant to discuss the Account and to dispute the Account with the Defendant. 28. On December 14, 2011 the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a telephone conversation regarding the Account. 29. The telephone conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 14, 2011 conveyed information regarding the Account directly or indirectly to the Plaintiff. Case 1:11-cv-03384-RPM-KLM Document 1 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9