Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/233636423/Young-v-Diversified-Consultants-Inc-FDCPA-FCCPA-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 00:29:05
Document Index: 135045113

Matched Legal Cases: ['§559', '§1692', '§1692', '§559', '§559', '§559']

Young v Diversified Consultants Inc FDCPA FCCPA Complaint | Collection Agency | Plaintiff
Young v Diversified Consultants Inc FDCPA FCCPA ComplaintUploaded by ghostgripRelated InterestsCollection AgencyPlaintiffComplaintGovernmentPoliticsRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION SPENCER YOUNG and EDNA YOUNG, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintifs, v. Case No. DIVERSIFIED CONSULT ANTS, INC., Defndant. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintifs, SPENCER YOUNG and EDNA YOUNG ("Plaintifs"), through their attoreys, The Law Offces of Robert Peters, P.A., alleges the fllowing against Defndant, DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., (Defendant): INTRODUCTION 1. Count I of Plaintifs Complaint is based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). 2. Count II of Plaintifs Complaint is based on the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.72 ("FCCPA"). JSDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d), which states that such actions may be brought and heard befre "any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy," and 28 U.S.C. 1367 grants this court supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims contained within. Case 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
4. Venue and personal jurisdiction in this District are proper because Defendant does or transacts business within this District, and a material portion of the events at issue occurred in this District. PARTIES 5. Plaintifs are natural persons residing in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida. 6. Plaintifs are consumers as that term is defned by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3). 7. Plaintiff, SPENCER YOUNG, allegedly owes a debt as that term is defned by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5). 8. Defndant is a debt collector as that term is defned by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 9. Defndant attempted to collect a consumer debt fom Plaintifs. 10. Defndant is a collection agency located in Jacksonville, Florida. 11. Defndant is a business entity engaged in the collection of debt within the State of Florida. 12. The principal purpose of Defndant's business is the collection of debts allegedly owed to third parties. 13. Defndant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts allegedly owed to third parties. 14. During the course of its attempts to collect debts allegedly owed to third parties, Defndant sends to alleged debtors bills, statements, and/or other correspondence, via the mail and/or electronic mail, and initiates contact with alleged debtors via various means of telecommunication, such as by telephone and fcsimile. 15. Defndant acted through its agents, employees, ofcers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Defndant is attempting to collect a consumer debt from Plaintif, SPENCER YOUNG, 2 Case 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
originating fom a debt with AT&T. 17. Plaintiffs alleged debt owed arises from transactions for personal, fmily, and household purposes. 18. Starting approximately one year and a half ago, Defndant, began placing collection calls to Plaintif, SPENCER YOUNG on Plaintiffs cellular telephone number at 919-357-
28xx. 19. Starting approximately a year and a half ago, Defendant began placing collection calls to Plaintif, EDNA YOUNG, on her home telephone numbers at 727-934-22xx and 516-385-
60xx. 20. Defndant calls Plaintifs from various numbers including, but not limited to 919-794-
4415, 8 13-644-8800, 8 13-644-8809, 8 13-644-8770, 8 13-644-8769, and 727-483-5285. 21. The telephone numbers of 919-794-4415, 8 13-644-8800, 8 13-644-8809, 813-644-8770, 8 13-644-8769, and 727-483-5285 are Defndant's telephone numbers. 22. On numerous occasions, Plaintiffs told Defndant to stop calling. 23. Despite the foregoing, Defndant continued to place collection calls to Plaintifs. 24. Defendant called Plaintifs so frequently that Plaintiffs had to block Defndant's phone number. 25. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff, EDNA SPENCER, has told Defndant that she does not live with Plaintif and to stop calling. 26. Plaintiff, SPENCER YOUNG, has also instructed Defndant to stop calling his mother, EDNA SPENCER. 27. Despite this, Defndant continued to call Plaintiff, EDNA YOUNG, in an attempt to collect a debt. 3 Case 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
COUNT I DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 28. Defendant violated the FDCPA based on the fllowing: a. Defendant violated §1692c() of the FDCPA when Defndant contacted Plaintiff SPENCER YOUNG's mother, a third party, without Plaintifs permission, in an attempt to collect a debt from Plaintif; b. Defndant violated § l 692d of the FDCPA by engaging in conduct the natural consequences of which is to harass, oppress, and abuse Plaintifs in connection with the collection of an alleged debt when Defendant continued to place collection calls to Plaintiffs afer repeatedly being told to stop calling; and c. Defndant violated §1692d(5) of the FDCPA by causing a telephone to ring repeatedly and continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, and harass Plaintifs when Defndant continued to place collection calls to Plaintiffs afer repeatedly being told to stop calling. WHEREFORE, Plaintifs, SPENCER YOUNG and EDNA YOUNG, respectflly request judgment be entered against Defndant, DIVERSIFIED CONSULT ANTS, INC., fr the following: 29. Statutory damages of $ 1,000.00 pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 u.s.c. 1692k; 30. Costs and reasonable attorneys' fes pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692k; and 31. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate. 4 Case 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
COUNT II DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 32. Defndant violated the FCCPA based on the following: 33. Plaintifs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1-27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as the allegations in Count II of Plaintifs' Complaint. a. Defndant violated the §559. 72(7) of the FCCPA by willflly communicating with Plaintifs or any member of Plaintifs' fmily with such fequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the Plaintifs and their family when Defndant continued to place collection calls to Plaintifs afer repeatedly being told to stop calling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SPENCER YOUNG and EDNA YOUNG, respectflly request judgment be entered against Defndant, DIVERSIFIED CONSULT ANTS, INC., for the following: 34. Statutory damages of $ 1,000.00 pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.77; 35. Costs and reasonable attoreys' fes pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.77; and 36. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate. 5 Case 8:14-cv-01660-EAK-TBM Document 1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6
DATED: July 3, 2014 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, By: Isl 6 Robert Peters (Bar. No. 996157) The Law Ofces of Robert Peters, P.A. 1054 Kings A venue Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tel: 904-421-6907 Fax: 904-328-3778 service.peterslaw@gmail.com Attorey fr Plaintifs Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Young v Diversified Consultants Inc FDCPA FCCPA ComplaintSkip carouselMichael Desantis, as Next Friend of John B. Desantis, Sr. v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159, 2d Cir. (2001)A Perspective on Hayt, Hayt & LandauFcra and FdcpaAJ Legal FormsUS Treasury descriptionosc-dioNoticePsychdoc's Credit Repair for BeginnersCommon Law versus Statute Law.pdfcrp_5180_2015_wtmkrComplaint for EjectmentHarry B. Scheeler, Jr. v Hamilton Township Schools Verified ComplaintSalt-River-Electric-Coop-Corp-RatesLPO Tabor Et Al Cross Assignment ReplyInnovative Automation v. Kaleidescape(PC) Ellis v. Carey, et al - Document No. 4EN BANC watataRabadilla2.pdfRemRev PartV Ledesma vs CAMcGinn v. Roberts et al - Document No. 4Person v. Google Inc. - Document No. 26Racaza vs. Gozomkal vs caDavid Grisman et al v. UMG Recordings Inc et al - Document No. 58Complaint - Wigdor v. SoulCycleUnited States v. 2005 Ford F-150, License Number 7V58581, VINDesamparado vs CA1. de dios vs caGeneral PrinciplesDocuments About Collection AgencySkip carouselCredit Do's and Don'tsnycirc_1979_08491.pdfJennifer Lynn Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, 163 F.3d 111, 2d Cir. (1998)John Pinson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, 11th Cir. (2016)Asian Journal March 6-12, 2015 EditionKaren Maguire, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Citicorp Retail Services, Inc., 147 F.3d 232, 2d Cir. (1998)Kharyn Ramsay v. Sawyer Property Management of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2014)Paul Shimek, III v. Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, P.C., 374 F.3d 1011, 11th Cir. (2004)Cleo B. Smalley Dorothy I. Smalley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 966 F.2d 1444, 4th Cir. (1992)Kevin Paul Ferree v. Teresa W. Marianos, and Shapiro & Marianos, a Partnership, 129 F.3d 130, 10th Cir. (1997)James v. Wadas, 10th Cir. (2013)SENATE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - ENSURING PATIENTS' ACCESS TO CARE AND PRIVACYRichard Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc, 3rd Cir. (2014)Norman Morse v. Paula Kaplan, 3rd Cir. (2012)Cynthia A. Siwulec v. Jm Adjustment Services LLC, 3rd Cir. (2012)Herbert T. Silver D/B/A Allied Bond and Collection Agency v. Brian J. Woolf, in His Capacity as Acting Banking Commissioner of the State of Connecticut, 694 F.2d 8, 2d Cir. (1982)Stanley L. Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 11th Cir. (2014)Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2010 Fair Debt Collection Practices ActCourtney Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 3rd Cir. (2014)Newman v. Ormond, 11th Cir. (2010)53 soc.sec.rep.ser. 905, Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 45,598, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 431 University Health Services, Inc. v. Health & Human Services, Donna Shalala, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary, 120 F.3d 1145, 11th Cir. (1997)Judy N. Brock v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., 11th Cir. (2016)201303 Cfpb March FDCPA Report1Diane Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 754 F.2d 907, 11th Cir. (1985)SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REAUTHORIZATIONDavid Alibrandi, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Financial Outsourcing Services, Inc., 333 F.3d 82, 2d Cir. (2003)Keith Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 11th Cir. (2015)George Wilson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Quadramed Corporation, George Wilson, 225 F.3d 350, 3rd Cir. (2000)Marianne Gatterman v. James T. Rhodes, President, Virginia Power Company Kenneth Lane, Director, Customer Service Lynn Hightower Terry Patch Virginia Power Company, as a Corporate Entity, 898 F.2d 145, 4th Cir. (1990)Anthony Graziano v. Michael Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 3rd Cir. (1991)More From ghostgripSkip carouselUrspringer v Pizza Luce ADA Discrimination ComplaintUnilever Hellman's Survey Questions - Hampton CreekMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPA Complaint Debt CollectorNicolai v NCO Financial Systems Inc Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Erstad RiemerPresqriber LLC v Practice Fusion Inc Motion to DismissPresqriber v Practice Fusion Patent ComplaintPresqriber v Practice Fusion Motion to DismissPratt v NCO Financial Systems FDCPA Complaint MinnesotaReflections of a Career Prosecutor James BackstromMinneapolis Police Officers Federation Contract 2012Scheffler v NCO Financial Systems Inc FDCPA ComplaintConopco Unilever Hellman's v Hampton Creek Just Mayo ComplaintChase Receivables Chase Payment CenterDeclaration of Michael J Wood Chase ReceivablesBien v Stellar Recovery Inc Complaint Caller ID SpoofingChase Receivables Collection Agency NoticeAcosta v Credit Bureau of Napa County Chase ReceivablesHellmans v Just Mayo - Declaration of Michael MazisDeclaration of Ryu Yokoi Hellman's - Unilever v Hampton Creek Just MayoDobson Chase Receivables Robert ArleoDiabate v University of Minnesota ComplaintJay Clifton Kolls DPPA ExhibitsKSTP Jay Kolls Profile PointergateJay Clifton Kolls v City of Edina Withdrawal of CounselMotion for Class Certification Acosta v Credit Bureau of Napa CountyMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPAGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Appendix ECF 17-2 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Complaint ECF 17 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Apr 3 Letter ECF 43 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Order ECF 44 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald Minnesota