8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
1/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASERN DISRICT OF NEW YORK
BORUCH OLDAKo behalf of himself ad
al other simlarly stuated consumers
CV 14 295Plaint SCANLON, M.J
-agaist
FILEDIN ERK' FIE
CREDIT BUEAU OFNAPA COUNTY INC.D/B/ A CHASE RECEIVABLES
U. DSTRC OU E.NY
* MAY oa 2014 *
Dendant.NG i$bA OC
CLASS ACTON COMPLANT
Introduction
1 Plant Boruch Oldak seeks redress r the llegal practices of Credt Bureau Of Napa
Couty nc. d/b/a Chase Recevables in which it unlawlly engaged i the collecton of
consumer debts in violato of the Far Debt Collecton Practices Act 5 USC. 1692
et seq ("FDCP A).
Parties
2. Planti is a citze of the State of New York who resides withi this Dstrict.
3 Plaint s a consumer as that term is dened by Secton 15 US.C. 1692(a)(3) of the
FDCPA
4 The alleged debt that Defedat sought to collect om the Plainti ivolves a consume
debt
5 Upo irmation and belef Dendant's prcpal place of usness s located wth
Sonoma, Cairia
-
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
2/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
6 Dendant is regularly engaged, r prot in the colection of debts allegedy owed by
consumers.
7. Dendant is a "debt colector as that term is dened by the FDCPA, 1 U.S.C.
692(a)(6)
Jurisdition and Venue
8. This Cour has deral question juisdiction under 15 US.C !692k(d) and 28 USC
1331.
9. Venue s proper m this district pursuant to 28 U.SC. 39l(b) as the acts and
transactions that give rise to this action occued in substantial par within this istrict.
Alegations Particular to Boruch Oldak
0. Upon inrmation and belief, on a date better known by Dendant, Dendant began to
attempt to coect an aleged consumer debt om the Plainti
11 On or about November 2 2013 Dendant sent the Plainti colection letters seeking
to colect a baance allegedly incurred r personal puposes.
12. he said leters stated: "We apologize that a possible hardship or pitll may have
prevented yo om satising your obligation It is with this in mind that we woud like
to oer you a imited time oer opportunity to satisfy your otstanding debt
13 he eters then went on to provide various imited time settlement oers with due dates
upon which those oers where required to be paid by
14. Dendant stated the above language in order to create a sense of urgency in Plainti
and make him thik that he was under a non-existent deadline.
1. Dendant's leters are miseading and deceptive in that its statements: "It is with this in
mind that we woud ike to oer you a limited time oer opporunity to satis your
2-
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
3/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
outtadig debt, amog other uch tatemet imply a time deadlie
6. Upo imatio ad belief there wee o time deadlie ather, Dedat made
thee tatemet olely to create a le ee of ugecy by the laiti
7 At all time herei Dedat witte commuicatio to laiti were le
deceptive, ad mileadig
8. Defedat violated US.C. 692d of the FDCA by haaig laiti m
coectio with the collectio of an alleged debt.
9. Dedat violated S.C. 692e ad 692e( l 0 of the FDCA by uig fale,
deceptive, or mileadig repreetatio or mea i connectio with the collectio of a
debt
20 Dedat violated U SC 692f of the FDCA by uig ui or ucocioable
mea to collect or attempt to collect a debt.
2. Sectio 692d provide that a debt collecto may ot egage i any coduct the atural
coequece of which i to hara oppre or abue any peo i coectio with the
collectio of a debt See U.S.C. 692d he proper legal tadard nder !692d
take ito coideatio the ct that [w]hether a coumer i more o le likely to be
haaed, oppeed o abued by certai debt collectio practice doe ot relate olely
to the coumer' elative ophiticatio. Cout itead ue a tandard analogou to the
leat ophiticated coumer tadard which requie "claim unde 692d hould be
viewed om the pepective of a coume whoe circmtance make him elatively
more uceptible to haramet, oppreio o abue.
22. Sectio l 692e and 692e 0) prohibit the ue of any le epeetatio o deceptive
mean to collect or attempt to collect ay debt or to obtai irmatio coceig a
3
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
4/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
conume. Th geneal pohibion i inended o cove he decepive collecon ac and
pacice ha do no he pecic pohibiion given in he ubecion of hi ecion
a would be impoible Conge o eee and i evey ype of decepve
colecion mbehavio
23 In he conex of elemen lee, many cou have held ha elemen lee can be a
poiive boh deb colleco and conume. Nevehele in keeping wh he
auoy equiemen colecion agencie may no be decei in he peenaon of
he elemen oe. In Goswami, he Fih Cicu wa peened wih a ee om he
defendan ha aed ha i could oe he paini a 30% dicoun a long a i
eponded whin he nex 30 day even hough he dendan had auhoiy o oe he
dicoun onge han he 30 day d. n eveing he diic cou gan of
ummayudgmen n vo of he dendan he Fifh Cicui held ha:
Whle we agee i i impoan o pemi collecion agencieo oe elemen ha poicy conideaion doe no emovecollecion agencie obigaon unde he FDC A o dea in a
non- decel mae. A collecion agency may oe aelemen; howeve may no be eceil in he peenaionof ha elemen oe a dendan wa in h cae [Thedendan decepion i acionable unde he FDCA and ino excued becaue i pa of a deb colleco elemenoe.
d. a 499. Reing o he acual ee a iue in Gowam, he cour deemned
ha he lowng eaon he defendan lee wa a violaion of he FDC A
The aemen in he collecion lee i unue and mae iappea ha [he oiginal cedio] oe of a 30% dicoun waa oneme ae-i-o-leave-i oe ha would expe in hiyday. The obviou purpoe of he aemen wa o puh [he
1 Cmpzno-Buos Midn Crei Meme Inc, 550 3d 2 2 (3d C 2008 ctng Gowmi Am Coecon Ener, 377 3 88 6 (h Ci200
4
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
5/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
plainif o mae a apid paymen o ae advanage of hepurpoed lmed ime oe
24. Dendan's use of llusoy and abiay deadlnes wee mean o deceive he lan o
mae a promp paymen
5 Dendan caimed ha s selemen oes n he sad lees wee scly coningen
upon paymen beng eceved in he amouns saed in he especive lees by he due
daes saed, bu upon nrmaion and beief, Dendans ime deadlines ae arcial
The Dendan inended o give he lse impession ha if he consume does no pay
he seemen oe by he deadine, hen he consume wll have no rhe chance o
sele hei deb ess han he ll amoun.
26. Upon inmaon and beef, he oignal cedio did no pu any limiaions on he ime
wihin which lani coud accep an oe
See. D G og v. Fn. R cov S rvs., 202 .S. Dis. LEXIS 40966 9-20 (E.D. a.Sep 7 20) Sang "whie he sa habo language may ensue ha he consume
will no peceive hese lees as oneime oes plain alleges ha he 35-day
deadines in he lees did no exis a all. Theee whehe he leas sophisicaed
consume would peceive he [colecion] ees as oneime akei-o-eavei oes
o as poenally enewable oes, each lee sil conained lse and misleading
nmaion because, as aleged by plain, no deadline exised a all.)
27 The nclusion of a deadine in a selemen oe iself does no violae he FDCA.
Howeve in ode o ac consisenly wih 169e, he deb colleco may no be
decel in he pesenaion of he selemen oe"2
8. Whee a deb colecion lee conains an oe o sele by a specied dae and makes i
2 Camuzao 55 3 at 299 quotg Gowam v. Am oeco Ee, 377 3d 88, 496 (h i 2))
-5 -
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
6/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
appar thrin that such or is a ontim ta-itorlavit or whn in ct th
dbt holdr is prpard to ma othr ors ar th xpiration dat, th lttr contains a
ls statmnt in violation of th FDCP A.3 A lttr that lavs a consumr with such a
fals imprssion violats 169 bcaus an unsophisticatd consumr may thi that if
thy don't pay by th dadlin, thy will hav no urhr chanc to sttl thir dbt r
lss than th ll amount.
DeGeorge v Fin Recoveryrvs, 01 U Dist LEXI 10966, 9 (ED Papt. 7 01) Th court statd In Evory ... [Th vnth Circuit hld that if a
collction ltr containd th languag, W ar not obligatd to rnw this or, an
unsophisticatd consumr would not b misld bcaus vn th unsophisticatd
consumr will raliz that thr is a rnwal possibility but that it is not assurd ... h
sa harbor languag in oy did not authori dbt collctors to prsnt dadlins in
collction ltrs that wr in ct non-xistnt Thrr, I conclud that plaintis
allgations that th collction lttrs includd ls dadlins vn i thos dadlins
wr prsntd as rnwabl ors is sucint to stat a claim undr 169 Th
court notd Morovr, I conclud that misrprsntations concing dadlins in a
collction lttr constitut matrial misrprsntations. Thrr plainti has statd a
claimundr l 69 vn if non-matrial, ls rprsntations do not violat th
FDCPA
9. ction 169f o th FDCPA provids that a dbt collctor may not us "unir or
unconscionabl mans to collct or ampt to collct any dbt. 15 .C l 69f.
ction 169 thn gos on to numrat ight particular practics which ar unir or
3 Dupuy v Weitman. Wenberg& Res Co 44 F.Supp.d 8 88 .D.Cal 006); [19] ee also Goswam 3773 a 96
-6-
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
7/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
unnsinb Hvr, 1692f is nt limitd by this list ight prtis nd
prhibits l unir unnsinbl ndut n th prt f dbt lltr Rd v
Pinnl Cdit Sevies C 29 W 246182 (D P Aug 1 29) (h itf 1692f viltin und in th ubstins nnxhutiv) (ntl ittin
nd quttin mittd)
3 A lim und FDCPA prvisin prhibiting dbt lltr m using unir r
unnsinbl mn t llt r mpt t t ny dbt huld b vid
thugh lns f th "st-phititd numr.
31 h lr intntin f th id r is t prsur th Plinti t m up ith mny
brth illusry mislding ddlin run ut
32 Dndnt s m f ptt nd pti mils ltr, r u th miling f
tt t dbts using ngug substntily imilr mtrilly idntil t tht
utiid by Dfndnt in miing th bv-itd trs t th Pinti
33. h ltr th Dfndnt mis, us t b mild r prdud by Dndnts
nrd fr nd intgrtd hd thlgi inuding mputr prgrm,
miling hu, nd troni dtbs
34. h id rs r tndrdizd rm lt
3. Dndnt' Nvmbr 2 213 tr r in viltin f 1 USC 1692d 1692
692( ) nd l 692f r ngging in dptiv, misding nd unir prtis.
36 h sid ltrs ls ttd in ptinnt part lls: Py vi Crdit Crd ($1495
Chs Rivb pring hr pplib) nd ni Ch Pymnts
n b dn vr th phn ($99 Chs Rivbs prssing hr
pplib)
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
8/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
7 Th iai ad lli f h said pssig s is ulaful.
g Shami . National Enter. Svs., 21 WL 824151 (E.D.N.Y. p.2 21)(Th u ludd ha h mplai sufil pladd a aus f ai
vilai f 1692f() ad 1692(2). Th mplai ivlvd a lli l
iludig h laguag u a w pa b aumad ph ssm h
i Tasai s will b hargd if s h aumad ph ssm h
i mak pam his au. Yu ar quid us h aumad
ph ssm h i mak pam his au.), McCutcheon v
Finkestein Kern Steinberg & Cunningham 212 WL 26689 (MD T Ja212) (Th plaii sad a viabl FDCPA laim b allgig ha h dda
lld ampd ll a 4.24 pam pssig pssl
auhizd b h agm aig h db) Quinteros v MB! Assocs, 214 UDis LEXI 2775 (EDNY Fb 27 214) (FDCPA vilad b Clls F
pss pams b di ad, hks v ph)
8. Ddas prssig dmad is i vilai f 15 U.C. 1692(2) ad
1692f() gagig i dpiv pais b makig a ls psai ha i was
ild iv mpsai pam b di ad b llig a amu
ha was auhid b a pmid b law
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Volations of the Fair Debt Colection Practices Act brought by Plaint on beha of himse and the
members of a class, as against the Defendant.
9. Plaii -sas -allgs, ad ipas hi b f paagaphs (1)
hugh hi igh (8) as if s h ll i his aus f ai
8
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
9/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
0. This cus f ctin is brught n bhlf f Plinti nd th mmbrs f css nd
subclss
1. Th css cnsists f prsns whm Dndnts rcrds rct rsidd in th tt f
Nw Yr nd wh wr snt cllctin lr in substntilly th sm rm rs s
th rs snt t th Plinti n r but Nvmbr 2 2013; nd ) th cllctin
lttrs wr snt t cnsumr sing pymnt prsn dbt purprtdly wd t
Mntgmry rds nd Amrimrk nd b) th cctin lttrs wr nt rturnd by
th pstl srvic s undlivrd; c) nd th Plinti ssrs tht th ltrs cntind
viltins f 15 U.C. 162d 162 162 l 0) nd 162f r ngging in
dcptiv misding nd unir prctics.
2 Th subclss cnsists f l prsns whm Dndnts rcrds rct rsidd in th
tt f Nw Yr nd wh wr snt clctin lr bing th Dndnts
lrhd in substntily th sm rm s th r snt t th Plinti n r but
Nvmbr 2 2013 snt within n yr prir t th dt f th within cmplint )
th clctin ltr ws snt t cnsumr sking pymnt f cnsumr dbt
puprdly wd t Mntgmry rds nd Amrimrk; nd b) th clctin lttr
ws nt rtud by th pst srvic s undlivrd; c) nd th Plinti ssrs tht
th lr cntind viltins f 15 U..C. 1622) nd 162fl ) r mking ls
rprsnttin tht it ws ntitd t rciv cmpnstin r pymnt by crdit crd.
43. Pusunt t drl Rul f Civil Prcdur 23 css ctin is pprprit nd
prrb in this cs bcus:
) Bsd n th ct tht rm cllctin ttrs r t th hr f this litigtin th
clss is s numrus ht jindr f ll mmbrs is imprcticbl
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
10/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
() Thee ae questions of law and ct common to the cass and these questions
pedominate ove an question(s) aecting onl individual class memes. he
pincipa qestion pesented this claim is whethe the Dendant violated the
FDCPA.
( c) The onl individual issue involves the identication of the consmes who
eceived such colection letes (i.e the class memes). This is puel a mate
capale of ministeial detemination om the ecods of the Dendant
(d) The claims of the Plainti ae tpical of those o the class memes. All of the
espective class claims ae ased on sustantial simia cts and egal theoies.
(e) The Plainti wll il ad adeqatel epesent the class memes inteests.
The Plainti has etained cosel expeienced in inging class actions and
collection ause claims The Plaintis inteests ae consistent with those of the
memes of the class.
. A class action is supeio the fai and ecient adjdication of the class memes
claims. Congess specical envisions class actions as a pincipal means of encing
the FDCPA. 15 UC 69(k) The memes of the class ae geneal
usophisticated individuals whose ights wil not e vindicated in the asence of a class
action Posection of sepaate actions individua memes of the classes would
ceate the is of inconsistent o vaing adjudications eslting in the estalishment of
inconsistent o vaing standads the paties and would not e in the inteest o
judicial economy.
. If the cts ae discoveed to e appopiate the Plainti wil seek to cetif a cass
pusuant to Rule 3()(3) of the Fedea Rules o Civil Pocedue
0
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
11/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
46 Colecton atemps sch as those made by the Dendan are to be evaaed by he
objecive sandard o he hypoheical "leas sophisicaed consmer
Voations of the Fair Debt Colection Practices Act
he Dendants actions as se rh above n the wihn compant violates he Far Deb
Collecion racces Act
8. Becase the Deendan violated the Fair Debt Collection ractices Act, the lainti and
he members o the cass are enttled o damages in accordance with he Fair Debt
Colecton ractices Act
WHFO laini, respectlly reqess preliminary and permanent innctve rele, and that
ths Cor enter jdgmen in his vor and agains he Dendant and award damages as llows:
(a tatory and acal damages provided nder he FDCA, 15 UC. 169(k;
d
(b Atoey es litigaion epenses and costs incrred n brnging ths acton and
(c y other relef tha hs Cor deems appropriae and st nder the
circmstances
11
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
12/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
Daed Cedarhurs ew YrMay 6 1
J sben PC (A-958Aey A aw
A 83 Cesnu ree
Cedarhurs ew Yr 11516elepne (6) 91
acsmle (6) 91-1
Plan reqess ra by jury n all ssues s rable
12
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
13/16
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
14/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14N r Cy Dp B 6
GU& yu culeI on Eve n a dfdr w l x /S k sat1 t Jgmn ht o hl\ re )p
Suplemntf soY i. SI},2 l cur;3 Pbi e (wlar}; () rc 5. m :a ibl 7 Wk o ,8 Pl' ; V 0 F g ! J s f"
ACT
Q4 CA?IL
91 $
. T . > 9'
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
15/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
P X Jl!IOD
Ad
8/12/2019 Oldak v Credit Bureau of Napa County Inc Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdf
16/16
Case 1:14-cv-02950-FB-VMS Document 1 Filed 05/08/14 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16Ngw Yk C Dr Consu cnumer 1 O
'A H u yu l or db E If h $ n bi: a gm 9t s l c.r exl1 n m t 0 ) lom tha y v \ UC5 y Q9pt fmo Spe.1l ou (SIJ;2 S ly3 e4, p " {li} r chld 5. Uloymantbnafit;e sbi ;7 Wr i :a. P v pi9 V i F&r wdn & fa 1
F
JL !
T . - >
Top Related