Consumer complaint received 2026-05-05 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Johnson Mark LLC
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
Johnson Mark LLC ( " Johnson Mark '' ) is a Utah law firm operating as a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 6 ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ). Johnson Mark is attempting to collect an alleged debt of {$5300.00}, identified as XXXX XXXX, XXXX. account ending XXXX, under Johnson Mark File Number XXXX. Johnson Mark sent its initial collection letter on XX/XX/XXXX, mailed a follow-up " validation '' response on XX/XX/XXXX, and has dispatched XXXX Investigations as private process server to attempt service of process at my residence on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. None of those service attempts has been affected. Johnson Mark has refused, for over sixty-five days and despite four written certified-mail demands, to identify the current creditor in writing. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 2 ), a debt collector 's initial communication must identify " the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. '' Johnson Mark 's XX/XX/XXXX follow-up the only document responsive to my XX/XX/XXXX dispute is a one-paragraph form letter on Johnson Mark letterhead, signed `` JOHNSON MARK LLC '' with no individual attorney signature. It refers to " our client '' without naming the client. The internal " Account Detail '' printout enclosed with that letter lists the creditor only as " XXXX XXXX, XXXX. '' with no third-party assignee identified. The Capital XXXX billing statement enclosed ( XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ) directs payment to XXXX XXXX 's own XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, CA, and states that the alleged account is " now serviced by the XXXX department at XXXX. '' On XX/XX/XXXX I issued a fresh written demand to Johnson Mark by email and certified mail, again specifically asking Johnson Mark to identify in writing the current creditor on whose behalf they collect file XXXX. The fresh demand is one of fifteen specific demands that remain unanswered. Regulation F itemization is facially defective. Under 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( iii ), a debt collector 's validation notice must identify the current creditor with sufficient specificity for the consumer to identify the alleged debt. Sections 1006.34 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( iv ) through ( viii ) require an itemization with the itemization date and the amounts and dates of any interest, fees, payments, and credits applied since that date. Johnson Mark 's XX/XX/XXXX letter relies on a single XXXX XXXX billing statement and does not provide the 1006.34 ( c ) ( 2 ) itemization. Section 1692g ( b ) cease-collection has been triggered and ignored. I mailed Johnson Mark a written dispute on XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX certified mail, setting forth twelve specific validation demands. The XX/XX/XXXX form letter answered only two. I mailed a follow-up insufficiency letter on XX/XX/XXXX by certified mail, delivered. As of today, sixty-five days later, Johnson Mark has not provided complete validation. Under 1692g ( b ), Johnson Mark " shall cease collection of the debt... until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt... and a copy of such verification... is mailed to the consumer. '' Despite that duty, Johnson Mark has continued and escalated collection activity, culminating in three process-server attempts at my residence ( XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) to serve litigation papers on the same disputed alleged debt. Section 1692f ( 1 ) post-charge-off interest accrual. The XXXX XXXX billing statement enclosed with Johnson Mark 's XX/XX/XXXX letter reflects {$110.00} of interest charged during the XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX cycle, increasing the alleged balance from {$5200.00} to {$5300.00} interest accrued on a charged-off account. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ), the collection of any amount, including any interest or fee incidental to the principal obligation, requires that the amount be expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Johnson Mark, as the active debt collector under XXXX, bears the burden of producing the contractual authorization. Johnson Mark has not done so. Section 1692e ( 3 ) the structural attorney-review failure. Under XXXX XXXX XXXX, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ), an attorney who lends their name to collection correspondence without independent review violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 3 ). Johnson Mark 's XX/XX/XXXX letter is signed only as " JOHNSON MARK LLC '' no individual attorney signature, no case-specific analysis, no contemporaneous indication that any licensed Utah attorney reviewed account XXXX before authorizing the communication. The Johnson Mark LLC attorneys publicly identified with the firm during the relevant period include XXXX XXXX ( Utah Bar No. XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Utah Bar No. XXXX ) ; the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence carries neither signature. Johnson Mark 's high-volume Utah collection practice is consistent with a mass-produced collection model that does not include individualized attorney review of each account ; this is reflected in the firm 's appearance as defendant in at least four D. Utah federal FDCPA cases within the last seven years. Johnson Mark can not produce attorney time records, individual file notes, individual signatures, or any other contemporaneous evidence that a Utah-licensed attorney personally reviewed the alleged {$5300.00} balance, the supporting records, the legal basis to collect, or the cease-collection trigger of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) before authorizing the firm 's collection correspondence, the engagement of XXXX Investigations as private process server, or the three documented service attempts at my residence on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. The structural absence of individualized attorney review is the single most damaging deficiency in this matter, because no records can be produced to cure it post hoc. Section 1692e ( 8 ) and FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) failure to mark disputed. I have continuously and in writing disputed this alleged debt since XX/XX/XXXX. My fresh XX/XX/XXXX Experian credit report ( Report Number XXXX ) reflects XXXX XXXX as the only furnisher reporting the alleged account XXXX, with status " Account charged off '' and " balance updated XX/XX/XXXX. '' Johnson Mark, as the active collector who has been on written notice of the dispute for 65+ days, is responsible for ensuring the furnisher chain reflects the dispute status. Johnson Mark has provided no written confirmation of disputed-status reporting. Section 1692e ( 5 ) / ( 7 ) misleading reference to criminal statute on process-server door card. The XXXX Investigations door card left at my residence on XX/XX/XXXX cites Utah Code Annotated XXXX ( " Interference with a Public Servant '' ) on a printed, generic notice given to consumers in connection with civil-process service of a debt-collection action. The least-sophisticated-consumer reading is that any failure to cooperate with the private contractor exposes the consumer to criminal liability a misleading representation of the means available for collection of an alleged consumer debt. Section 1692i venue preservation. Johnson Mark has been put on written notice that any civil action filed concerning the alleged account must be brought, under 15 U.S.C. 1692i, only in the judicial district where the consumer signed the contract sued upon or where the consumer resides. The consumer 's address of record is in XXXX XXXX, Utah. Johnson Mark is a recurrent FDCPA defendant in this district. XXXX XXXX Johnson Mark LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00018 ( D. Utah 2019 ) ; XXXX v. Johnson Mark LLC , No . 2:19-cv-00976 ( D. Utah 2020 ) ; XXXX v. Johnson Mark LLC XXXX No . 1:20-cv-00032 ( D. Utah ) ; XXXX XXXX Johnson Mark LLC , No . 2:22-cv-00821 ( D. Utah ). The standing framework controlling in this circuit is XXXX v. Prof ' l Bureau of Collections of Md. , Inc., 55 F.4th 823 ( 10th Cir. 2022 ). Related CFPB complaint. I previously filed CFPB complaint XXXX against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ; that complaint remains open. I respectfully request that the CFPB coordinate review of this complaint with that complaint, given the overlapping factual basis. The conduct described above subjects Johnson Mark LLC and its principal to actual damages, statutory damages of up to {$1000.00}, and attorney 's fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. 1692k. I am preparing affirmative defenses and FDCPA, FCRA, and Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act counterclaims for any litigation Johnson Mark ultimately effects through service. This complaint and its supporting record are part of that preparation. The conduct is escalating, not de-escalating, while the dispute remains open. Three process-server attempts in fifteen days XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX each occurred during Johnson Mark 's documented and continuing failure to provide complete validation, on an alleged debt the firm has refused for sixty-five days to identify the current creditor for. The XX/XX/XXXX service attempt occurred the same calendar day I issued my fresh 1692g demand by certified mail and email ; the firm 's contractor left a printed door card citing Utah 's criminal interference-with-public-servant statute on a routine civil debt-collection visit. The pattern of escalating service attempts during a continuing dispute is the conduct that prompted this complaint.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation