Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/122900204/Kurenitz-v-Stellar-Recovery-Inc-Debt-Collection-Minnesota-FDCPA-Mark-L-Heaney-Heaney-Law-Firm-LLC
Timestamp: 2014-03-11 08:04:26
Document Index: 631578295

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692']

P. 1Kurenitz v Stellar Recovery Inc Debt Collection Minnesota FDCPA Mark L Heaney Heaney Law Firm LLCKurenitz v Stellar Recovery Inc Debt Collection Minnesota FDCPA Mark L Heaney Heaney Law Firm LLCRatings: (0)|Views: 421|Likes: 0Published by ghostgripMore info:Published by: ghostgrip on Jan 30, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/122900204/Kurenitz-v-Stellar-Recovery-Inc-Debt-Collection-Minnesota-FDCPA-Mark-L-Heaney-Heaney-Law-Firm-LLC12/17/2013pdftextoriginal U
Steven M. Kurenitz and Maryanne Kurenitz, Plaintiffs, v. Stellar Recovery, Inc., Defendant. C
OMPLAINT AND D
EMAND FOR A J
This is an action for damages brought by Steven and Maryanne Kurentiz against Stellar Recovery, Inc. for its repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., Minnesota’s auto dialer law, Minn. Stat. 325E.27, and invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy. J
Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and supplemental jurisdiction exists for the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 3.
Venue is proper in this District because the relevant acts and transactions occurred here, Plaintiffs reside here, and Defendant transacts business here. P
Plaintiff, Steven M. Kurentiz, is a natural person who resides in the City of Elk River, County of Sherburne, and State of Minnesota. He is a “consumer” or a “person” affected by a violation of the FDCPA, as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 10
" §§ 1692a(3) and 1692k. 5.
Plaintiff, Maryanne Kurentiz, is a natural person who resides in the City of Elk River, County of Sherburne, and State of Minnesota. She is a “consumer” or a “person” affected by a violation of the FDCPA, as those terms are defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(3) and 1692k. 6.
Defendant, Stellar Recovery, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts in Minnesota. Defendant’s principal place of business is located at 1845 Highway 93 South, Suite 310, Kalispell, Montana, 55901. Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined under 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(6). F
Sometime prior to July 1, 2011, Plaintiffs’ son, Ryan Kurenitz, allegedly incurred a financial obligation, namely, an account with Comcast (“the Debt” or “alleged Debt”). 8.
The alleged Debt was a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is, therefore, a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 9.
Upon information and belief, on or around July 1, 2011, the Debt was assigned, placed or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection. 10.
Throughout the months of July 2010 to December 2011, Defendant made approximately 100 phone calls to Plaintiffs’ home telephone number in an attempt to collect the Debt. 11.
Each telephone call Defendant made to Plaintiffs’ home telephone number CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 10
# was made using an “automatic dialing-announcing device,” as defined by Minn. Stat. 325E.26, subd. 2. 12.
When Plaintiffs answered Defendant’s phone calls, Plaintiffs were greeted with a pre-recorded and/or synthesized voice. The voice would state, “We have an urgent message for Ryan Kurenitz.” The first time Plaintiffs answered Defendant’s phone call, they were alarmed because they believed the phone call may be related to the wellbeing and safety of their granddaughter. 13.
The synthesized voice would ask Plaintiffs to answer a series of question by pressing the numbers on their phone. The synthesized voice asked Plaintiffs, “is this Ryan Kurentiz?” The next question asked, “Does Ryan Kurentiz live at this residence?” The synthesized voice would continue to ask Plaintiffs questions that attempted to locate Ryan Kurentiz. Plaintiffs answered all the questions, indicating that their phone number did not belong to Ryan Kurentiz and he did not live with them. 14.
After answering all the questions asked by the synthesized voice, the voice asked for Plaintiffs to hold the line. After a long wait, a live debt collector employed by Defendant would come onto the line and ask for Ryan Kurentiz. Plaintiffs would explain that they had answered “no” to each of the automated questions asking if Ryan Kurenitz lived at their residence. Plaintiffs explained to the debt collector that Ryan Kurenitz did not live with them. The debt collector promised Plaintiffs on several occasions that they would remove Plaintiffs’ telephone number from their automated dialer. 15.
Despite the promises of Defendant’s employees, Plaintiffs continued to receive Defendant’s automated telephone calls. CASE 0:12-cv-00246-SRN-JSM Document 1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 10
More From This User Gourmet Heaven Chung Cho Wage Theft Arrest Warrant Connec...