FDCPA and TCPA Lawsuit Filed Against General Revenue Corporation

by John Watts on August 30, 2011

Here are the allegations in a recent case we filed against General Revenue Corporation.  The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as well as Alabama state law.

General Revenue Corporation “categorically denies” the allegations in our complaint.  I’m not entirely sure what that means but I think it means they don’t agree.

If you have experienced auto dialed calls or pre-recorded messages from General Revenue Corporation, please check out our blog post here.

You’ll have to ignore some of the spacing issues and the numbering is off as it restarted with each new section but hopefully this will give you the gist of the allegations.

COMPLAINT


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, in the above styled cause, and for Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Defendants states as follows:

  1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA[1]”), out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Defendant and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.

PARTIES

  1.  Plaintiff is a natural person who is a resident of Alabama.
  2. Defendant General Revenue Corporation, (“Defendant” or “General Revenue”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business inAlabama.  Its principal place of business is the State of Ohio and it is incorporated in Ohio.
  3. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the FDCPA as Defendant has alleged by its collection activities that Plaintiff owes Defendant money.
  4. The debt is allegedly a student loan owed by Plaintiff related to Devry University.
  5. Defendant made a large number of harassing and repeated phone calls to Plaintiff.
  6. Defendant General Revenue has called Plaintiff’s cell phone multiple times.
  7. Defendant General Revenue has called Plaintiff’s work phone multiple times.
  8. Plaintiff has attempted to understand what this debt is for but the companies involved have refused to provide Plaintiff with information regarding this debt.
  9. Plaintiff has contacted Devry University and has been told that Devry University has no information to send to Plaintiff related to this alleged debt.
  10. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested that General Revenue provide her with proof that this debt is owed but Defendant General Revenue has refused.
  11. General Revenue has repeatedly insisted that Plaintiff pay this debt.
  12. General Revenue has engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which is to annoy, harass, oppress, or abuse Plaintiff.
  13. General Revenue has refused to provide all required disclosures when making calls and in sending letters, including the failure to send the required 15 U.S.C. §1692g letter.
  14. General Revenue has engaged in abusive debt collection practices against Plaintiff, including the use of harassment, deception, and oppression.
  15. Some examples of the abusive conduct of General Revenue are listed below.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

General Revenue Discloses Debt to Plaintiff’s 11 year old Daughter

  1. Defendant General Revenue contacted a third party, Plaintiff’s minor daughter.
  2. Toward the end of April 2011, Defendant General Revenue called Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s daughter answered the phone.
  3. Defendant General Revenue asked to speak with Natosha Mixon.
  4. Plaintiff’s daughter said “Hold on.”
  5. Before Plaintiff’s daughter could set the phone down to get her mother, the collector for General Revenue said “Your mom needs to pay her bill.”
  6. When Plaintiff got to the phone the Defendant General Revenue had hung up.
  7. Plaintiff called General Revenue and asked to speak with a supervisor.
  8. Plaintiff told the supervisor what had just happened with the disclosure of the debt to Plaintiff’s daughter.
  9. The supervisor said that General Revenue would pull the recording and listen to it.
  10. The supervisor admitted the call was improper and should not have happened.
  11. No disciplinary action was taken against the collector who spoke to Plaintiff’s daughter.

General Revenue Refuses to Provide Proof of the Debt

  1. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested that General Revenue provide proof that this debt is owed.
  2. Plaintiff believes that this debt was consolidated along with other student loans or is otherwise not owed.
  3. Plaintiff has told General Revenue that she does not believe that she owes this debt to General Revenue or to Devry University.
  4. General Revenue has told Plaintiff that it will provide proof of the debt.
  5. General Revenue has refused to provide proof of this alleged debt.
  6. Plaintiff has reminded General Revenue that even though General Revenue has promised to provide proof of this alleged debt, General Revenue has refused to do so.
  7. General Revenue’s response has been to call third parties, violate the FDCPA, violate the TCPA, and to violate Alabama state law.
  8. General Revenue has misrepresented the character, amount, and/or legal status of the alleged debt as if it was owed as claimed by General Revenue, it would have provided proof.

General Revenue Harasses Plaintiff at Work

  1. Plaintiff works for a governmental agency and part of her job responsibilities include answering incoming calls on the public lines.
  2. Plaintiff’s work phone does not have caller ID.
  3. General Revenue has repeatedly called Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s work number.
  4. Plaintiff has told General Revenue not to call her on her work number.
  5. Plaintiff has told General Revenue when it calls it is tying up the public lines to her employer.
  6. Plaintiff has told General Revenue that she is not allowed to receive these types of calls on her work phone.
  7. General Revenue has refused to stop calling Plaintiff on her work phone.
  8. General Revenue has told Plaintiff that it will call Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s work phone as many times as necessary to resolve this debt.
  9. Defendant General Revenue has made good on its threat to call Plaintiff multiple times on her work phone.
  10. Defendant General Revenue has intentionally called Plaintiff in such a way as to annoy, abuse, harass, and oppress Plaintiff.
  11. Defendant General Revenue has knowingly called Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s work phone when it knows that this is not convenient for Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not allowed to receive these types of calls.

General Revenue Contacts Plaintiff’s Creditor Santander to

Obtain Personal Information on Plaintiff

 

  1. When Defendant General Revenue called Plaintiff on her work phone, Plaintiff asked Defendant General Revenue how it obtained her work phone number.
  2. Defendant General Revenue responded that it will obtain Plaintiff’s information by any means necessary.
  3. Defendant General Revenue told Plaintiff that it had, in fact, obtained Plaintiff’s work information, including her phone number, by any means necessary.
  4. Defendant General Revenue claims that it contacted one of Plaintiff’s creditors, Santander, in order to obtain contact information on Plaintiff.
  5. Defendant General Revenue told Plaintiff that Santander disclosed various types of information on Plaintiff, including where she worked and her work number.
  6. Plaintiff does not know if Defendant General Revenue actually contacted Santander or if this is part of the pattern of lies and harassment by Defendant General Revenue.
  7. If this is true that Defendant General Revenue contacted Santander, than this is an illegal third party contact.
  8. Defendant General Revenue knows the FDCPA does not allow a debt collector to contact a third party to obtain the work phone number of a consumer.
  9. If this is not true, than Defendant General Revenue has misrepresented important facts to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect this debt.
  10. Regardless of whether this claim of Defendant General Revenue of contacting Santander is true or not, the purpose and design and impact of Defendant General Revenue’s actions is clear: to use any means necessary to force Plaintiff into paying a debt that Plaintiff does not know is even owed.
  11. Defendant General Revenue may have called other third parties.
  12. Before contacting the third parties, Defendant had Plaintiff’s location information, and therefore had no reason to contact third parties concerning the alleged debt.
  13. Additionally, Defendant revealed details of the debt to the third parties and/or requested the third parties to communicate with the Plaintiff all of which are illegal.
  14. Defendant’s communication with third parties caused damage to the Plaintiff.
  15. Defendant has a history of third party disclosures.
  16. These activities are illegal.
  17. Plaintiff never gave permission or consent to Defendant making third party disclosures.
  18. Plaintiff could not have prevented Defendant’s illegal third party disclosures.
  19. There was no valid reason for Defendant to contact the third party or parties.

General Revenue Repeatedly Calls Plaintiff’s Cell Phone

  1. The Defendant has called Plaintiff numerous times on Plaintiff’s cell phone.
  2. Plaintiff has told Defendant not to call her anymore.
  3. Plaintiff has told Defendant General Revenue to provide proof of the debt as Plaintiff has disputed owing this debt on multiple occasions to Defendant General Revenue.
  4. Plaintiff has told Defendant to stop calling but Defendant refuses to stop calling and in particular to stop using illegal pre-recorded messages.
  5. Plaintiff has told Defendant to stop calling but Defendant refuses to stop calling and in particular to stop using auto dialers.
  6. Plaintiff has told Defendant to stop calling but Defendant refuses to stop calling and in particular to stop using predictive dialers.
  7. Defendant illegally used an autodialer to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
  8. Defendant illegally used a predictive dialer to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
  9. Defendant illegally used pre-recorded calls to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
  10. Plaintiff never gave Defendant permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with an autodialer.
  11. Plaintiff never gave Defendant permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with a predictive dialer.
  12. Plaintiff never gave Defendant permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with pre-recorded calls.
  13. The volume and type of calls are harassing as the intent and motive behind them is to annoy, harass, abuse, and/or oppress Plaintiff.
  14. This is designed to force Plaintiff into paying Defendant when Plaintiff may not owe Defendant any money.


SUMMARY

  1. All of the above-described collection communications made to Plaintiff by Defendant and collection agents of Defendant was made in violation of the FDCPA and TCPA.
  2. The Defendant violated numerous sections of the FDCPA, including, but not limited to:  15 U.S.C. §§1692b(1), 1692b(2), 1692c, 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(a)(3), 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692d(2), 1692d(5), 1692d(6), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g.
  3. The collection calls by Defendant and its agents caused Plaintiff enormous stress and anguish as a result of these calls.
  4. Defendant’s contact with third parties was an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and right to financial privacy.
  5. The above-detailed conduct by this Defendant of harassing Plaintiff in an effort to collect this debt was also an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and resulted in actual damages to the Plaintiff.
  6. This series of abusive collection calls by Defendant and its agents caused Plaintiff stress and anguish as a result of these abusive calls.
  7. Defendant’s repeated attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff and refusal to stop violating the law and to stop calling third parties was an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and Plaintiff’s right to be left alone.
  8. Defendant’s illegal abusive collection communications as more fully described above were the direct and proximate cause of severe emotional distress on the part of Plaintiff and caused Plaintiff unnecessary distress.
  9. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection communications by this Defendant in the form of anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration, damage to reputation, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy, and loss of money which was due to the illegal conduct of Defendant.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR LIABILITY

  1. The acts and omissions of Defendant’s agents who communicated with Plaintiff as more further described herein, were committed within the line and scope of their agency relationship with their principal the Defendant.
  2. The acts and omissions by these other debt collectors were incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities these agents were authorized to perform by Defendant in collecting consumer debts.
  3. By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiff, these other debt collectors were motivated to benefit their principal the Defendant.
  4. Defendant is therefore liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional, reckless, and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by its collection employees, including but not limited to violations of the FDCPA andAlabamatort law, in their attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.

NEGLIGENT AND WANTON HIRING AND SUPERVISION

  1. Defendant negligently and/or wantonly hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. The Plaintiff meets the definition of a “consumer” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
  3. The alleged debt which relates to a student loan meets the definition of a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
  4. Defendant General Revenue meets the definition of a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
  5. The acts and omissions of Defendant and its agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to:  15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b(1), 1692b(2), 1692c, 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(a)(3), 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692d(2), 1692d(5), 1692d(6), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), and 1692g.
  6. As a result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); (2) actual and compensatory damages; and, (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from Defendant.


COUNT II.

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA)

(47 U.S.C. § 227)

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Defendant has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal automatic dialers that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Defendant.
  3. Defendant has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal predictive dialers that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Defendant.
  4. Defendant has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal pre-recorded messages that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Defendant.
  5. Plaintiff has instructed Defendant to stop calling her cell phone.
  6. Defendant has refused to stop calling Plaintiff’s cell phone.
  7. There is no exception or justification for the numerous violations of the TCPA by Defendant as Plaintiff has not consented to the Defendant or to any original creditor to use these against Plaintiff’s cell phone.
  8. Each call is a separate violation and entitles Plaintiff to statutory damages against Defendant in the amount of at least $500.00 per call and Plaintiff requests that since the violations were made intentionally or recklessly that the violations be assessed a statutory damage of $1,500.00 per call.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
  9. All actions taken by Defendant were taken with malice, were done willfully, recklessly and/or were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the TCPA and/or that knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the TCPA.
  10. All of the violations of the TCPA proximately caused the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint.

COUNT III.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Alabamalaw recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Defendant violatedAlabamastate law as described in this Complaint.
  3. Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:

Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

 

15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (emphasis added).

  1. Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:

It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers’ nonpublic personal information.

 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) (emphasis added).

  1. Defendant and/or its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.
  2. Defendant and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
  3. Defendant also intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by making illegal contact about this debt to third parties, and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s right to financial privacy.
  4. Defendant and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
  5. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
  6. The conduct of this Defendant and its agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by this Defendant which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
  7. As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendant.
  8. All acts of Defendant and its agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such Defendant is subject to punitive damages.

COUNT IV.

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND

SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT DEBT COLLECTORS

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Defendant negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors, who were allowed or encouraged to violate the law as was done to Plaintiff, and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

  1. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendant acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  3. Defendant violated all of the duties Defendant had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
  4. It was foreseeable, and Defendant did in fact foresee it, the actions of the Defendant would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
  5. Defendant acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  6. Defendant invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth inAlabamalaw.
  7. Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused the damages set forth in this complaint.
  8. As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damage as set forth in this Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for statutory, actual, nominal, and punitive damages along with costs, expenses and attorney fees and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled to:

COUNT I.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

  • for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against Defendant;
  • for an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A) against Defendant;
  • for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.


COUNT II.

TCPA

  • for an award of actual damages from Defendant for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • statutory damages of $500.00 or $1,500.00 per call (both attempted and completed calls); and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT III.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

  • for an award of actual damages from Defendant for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damage; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT IV.

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND

SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT DEBT COLLECTORS

  • for an award of actual damages from Defendant for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent hiring and supervision of incompetent debt collectors and the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damage; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

COUNT V.

 NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

 

  • for an award of actual damages from Defendant for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff;
  • punitive damages; and
  • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ John G. Watts                                            

John G. Watts (WAT056)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

Watts Law Group, PC

TheKressBuilding

301 19th Street North

Birmingham,Alabama35203

(205) 879-2447

(888) 522-7167 facsimile

john@wattslawgroup.com

/s/ M. Stan Herring                             

M. Stan Herring (HER037)

Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

M. Stan Herring, P.C.

TheKressBuilding

301 19th Street North

Birmingham,Alabama35203

(205) 714-4443

(888) 522-7167 facsimile

msh@mstanherringlaw.com

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.


Serve defendant via certified mail at the following address:

 

General Revenue Corporation
c/o C T Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

[1] Any reference to the FDCPA or the TCPA includes all applicable subsections whether explicitly stated or not.


Previous post:

Next post: