Alabama Consumer Sues LVNV and Budzik Law Firm For FDCPA Violations

by John Watts on February 18, 2012

Alabama consumers are being sued by debt collector LVNV Funding, LLC, when they do not owe the money.  Here is an example of LVNV, after losing its collection lawsuit, hiring a collection law firm called Budzik & Dynia, LLC, out of Chicago, to continue to collect a debt our client does not owe.

Remember that debt buyers must prove, when they sue you in Alabama, that you actually owe the debt to the debt buyer.

In response to all of this, including false credit reporting, our client has filed suit making the allegations referenced above and set out below in detail.

You can either find examples of other lawsuits on our site here or you can find a list of the lawsuits specifically against LVNV by Alabama consumers.

Remember that the defendants LVNV and the Budzik lawfirm will deny the allegations in this lawsuit.  It is our burden to prove what we have alleged — just like it is the burden of LVNV when it sues Alabama consumers to show that the consumers owe a debt to LVNV.

 

COMPLAINT


COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for her Complaint against the Defendants states as follows:

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON DEBT BUYER LAWSUITS IN ALABAMA

  1. This case represents a growing trend in the debt collection industry.
  2. First, a debt buyer which claims to buy the Plaintiff’s debt for pennies on the dollar will sue the Plaintiff in small claims or district court.
  3. The debt buyer will hire a collection law firm to file the suit.
  4. Generally, most consumers default as they assume if a lawsuit has been filed, it must be legitimate.
  5. Additionally, the collection law firm will normally tell the consumer that the consumer will lose at trial.
  6. Occasionally, however, the consumer will file an answer and deny owing money.
  7. This causes great annoyance and angst for the debt buyer and the collection law firm.
  8. The reason is that the debt buyer and the collection lawyer know that in virtually every case they will be unable (or unwilling) to prove that the consumer owes this debt to the debt buyer.
  9. The debt buyer and collection law firm have no intention of proving their case.
  10. This is true in spite of the fact that the debt buyer, who decided to sue the Alabama consumer, bears the burden of proving that the Alabama consumer owes the debt and that the debt buyer owns the debt.
  11. No witness will be provided by the debt buyer.
  12. The entire model is based upon filing a high volume of cases, obtaining default judgments, and never having to make any effort to prove the allegations of the lawsuit.
  13. When resistance is provided, such as an attorney defending a consumer, the debt buyer’s collection law firm will dismiss the case or will show up at trial with no evidence, no witness, and no intention of proving the case.
  14. The case gets set for trial.
  15. Knowing they cannot prove their case, the debt buyer and collection law firm will dismiss their case with prejudice right before trial.
  16. The debt buyer knows that losing its case means under Alabama law that the debt is not owed by the consumer to the debt buyer.
  17. The collection lawyer knows that losing its case means under Alabama law that the debt is not owed by the consumer to the debt buyer.
  18. Since the debt is not owed, collection efforts must cease.
  19. Since the debt is not owed, the credit reporting by the debt buyer on the Alabama consumer was and is false.
  20. Normally, however, the debt buyer and collection law firm are not willing to give up.
  21. The debt buyer will continue to credit report that the consumer owes the debt.
  22. The same debt that a court determined is not owed.
  23. The collection law firm (the original one or a new one) will continue to call and/or write to the consumer demanding payment.
  24. The collection law firm will normally expressly or implicitly say that the consumer will be sued if the debt is not paid.
  25. The debt that is not owed.
  26. The collection law firm knows there is no debt owed.
  27. The collection law firm, however, is willing to continue to collect a bogus debt because most consumers will pay it, not realizing that winning at trial means the debt is not owed.
  28. Often the consumer will be convinced to pay the nonexistent debt to get it off their credit report or to stop the collection activities.
  29. When confronted about their actions, the debt buyer, the collection law firm, and its agents (including attorneys) will say the payment was voluntary.
  30. The debt buyer and collection law firm will say the collection efforts were merely accidents caused by one or more of the following (or similar excuses):
  31. “A new person was working who improperly coded the file.”
  32. “A simple keyboard error occurred that kept the debt alive.”
  33. “The letters and calls and credit reporting were simply to give the consumer a chance to pay off a moral obligation but were not really attempts to collect the debt.”
  34. “The debt buyer files so many lawsuits; it can’t be expected to keep up with which ones it loses.”
  35. “The debt buyer did not even know the collection law firm had filed the suit.”
  36. “The collection law firm never told the debt buyer the suit had been lost.”
  37. “The debt buyer and collection law firm can collect on any debt, even one that is not owed, because the consumer is guilty until he or she proves that she is innocent.”
  38. “Collection is important in America for the economy, so if some innocent people are harassed, it is acceptable for the good of the economy.”
  39. “Being harassed and sued and credit reported on a debt you do not owe should not cause any one any problems.”
  40. “Debt collection is a tough business and there are going to be innocent people who are harmed and that is just a reality and there is no need to get upset about it or to sue anyone.  It is part of life.”
  41. When sued over this illegal conduct, the debt buyer and collection law firm will make the excuses listed above.
  42. Ultimately, when sued, the debt buyer and the collection law firm will say “Well, yes, technically this should not have happened but despite losing in court we all know this consumer really did owe the money, so we are allowed to violate multiple state and federal laws.”
  43. When sued, the debt buyer and collection law firm will say it is the fault of the consumer.
  44. When sued, the debt buyer and collection law firm will blame the original collection law firm.
  45. When sued, the debt buyer and collection law firm say the consumer is guilty of contributory negligence.
  46. Amazingly, when sued the debt buyer and collection law firm will say that the judgment of a small claims or state district court judge is not a “real judgment” and should not bind the debt buyer and collection law firm and they desire to show that the debt really was owed, despite losing the collection lawsuit.
  47. The Plaintiff in this case disagrees and has brought this case to expose this dark side of the collection industry and how the collection industry and the Defendants in this particular case abuse consumers across Alabama in a routine, systematic, and deliberate manner.


RECOGNITION OF THE WIDESPREAD ABUSE BY COLLECTORS

  1. Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors.  15 USC § 1692 is entitled “Congressional findings and declaration of purpose” and it states as follows:

(a)        There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, decep­tive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. 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.

(b)        Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c)        Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collec­tion of debts.

(d)       Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub­stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com­merce.

(e)        It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt col­lection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt col­lection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

 

[Emphasis added].

 

PARTIES

 

  1. Plaintiff Sandra Alverson (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person who is a resident of Alabama, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
  2. Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC, (“Defendant” or “LVNV[2]”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business in Alabama.  Its principal place of business is in the State of Nevada and it is incorporated in Delaware.
  3. Defendant Budzik & Dynia, LLC, (“Defendant” or “Budzik[3]”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection.  It conducts business in Alabama.  Its principal place of business is in the State of Illinois and it is incorporated in Illinois.
  4. FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A, B and C being that person, entity or individual who collected on the account; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS D, E, and F, being that person, entity or individual who negligently hired, trained and supervised the person or entity charged with collecting on the account; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS G, H, and I, being that person, entity or individual who threatened or did cause harm to Plaintiffs including credit reporting; FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS J, K. and L, being that person, entity or individual who committed the wrongful acts alleged in the Complaint. Names of the Fictitious parties are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time but will be added by amendment when ascertained.

Factual Allegations

  1. Any reference to any Defendant or Defendants includes all fictitiously described defendants as if fully set forth.

The Small Claims Suit By LVNV Against Plaintiff

  1. On August 17, 2011, Defendant LVNV sued Plaintiff in the Small Claims Court of Shelby County, Alabama, with a case number of SM-2011-900681.
  2. The lawsuit was filed by the collection law firm of Cloud & Tidwell, LLC, 1625 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. S., Birmingham, Alabama 35205.
  3. In this suit, Defendant LVNV asserted it was the owner of a certain debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff.
  4. There were only two pieces of information given by LVNV in the lawsuit:  the amount of $2,561.47 and that this debt was supposedly a “GE Capital credit card charges.”
  5. The suit was filed against “Andra Alverson” instead of her correct legal name of Sandra Alverson.
  6. As Defendant LVNV sought a judgment against Plaintiff, which would severely damage her credit report, and sought a money damage judgment to be able to garnish wages, bank accounts, and to have the option to seize property, it is expected that Defendant LVNV would only file a legitimate case against Plaintiff.
  7. Given the seriousness of this lawsuit, Defendant LVNV would be expected to have an intention of proving its case.
  8. No such intention existed.
  9. Defendant LVNV never intended to offer one shred of evidence to prove its case.
  10. This lawsuit, and the hundreds and thousands of other Alabama lawsuits filed by LVNV, was filed with the intention of getting default judgments on debts that Defendant LVNV cannot and will not prove it has any right to collect on.
  11. Plaintiff did not and does not owe the debt.

Plaintiff Answers The LVNV Lawsuit

  1. Plaintiff filed an Answer on September 23, 2011, denying the allegations of Defendant LVNV.
  2. The answer stated by way of explanation “Defendant, Sandra (not ‘Andra’) Diane Alverson, denies all allegations in Complaint.  Defendant does not owe any money to Plaintiff [LVNV].”
  3. Defendant LVNV received a copy of this denial.
  4. Defendant LVNV understood that Plaintiff was refusing to pay on this debt.

The Judge Sets The LVNV Lawsuit For Trial On October 11, 2011

  1. The state court set the case for trial on October 11, 2011.
  2. Notice was sent to Defendant LVNV and Plaintiff.
  3. At all times Plaintiff was prepared for trial on October 11, 2011.

LVNV Files A Motion To Dismiss The Lawsuit With Prejudice

  1. Defendant LVNV realized that Plaintiff was willing to fight this case and that Plaintiff had counsel representing her.
  2. Defendant LVNV knew that with its intention to never prove the case, and with a represented Plaintiff, the game was over.
  3. Defendant LVNV had no intention of ever going to court with a represented Plaintiff – at least with a lawyer who understands the debt buying industry and lawsuit model.
  4. Defendant LVNV filed a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on October 3, 2011.
  5. Defendant LVNV, by and through its agent the collection law firm of Cloud & Tidwell, sent the voluntary dismissal with prejudice directly to the Plaintiff who was still represented by her counsel.

LVNV Loses The Collection Case

  1. On October 3, 2011, the state court dismissed the case with prejudice.
  2. This ended the case Defendant LVNV filed against Plaintiff.

Implications Of Losing The Case

  1. Defendant LVNV knows that under Alabama law that when it loses a case by dismissing it with prejudice (outside a settlement context), this means Plaintiff does not owe Defendant LVNV any money on this alleged debt.
  2. Defendant LVNV knows that losing the case means that it cannot credit report this account on Plaintiff.
  3. Defendant LVNV knows that losing the case means it cannot continue to collect against Plaintiff on this account.
  4. Defendant LVNV knows that losing the case means that it cannot send the account out to another collection agency.
  5. Defendant Budzik knows that since Defendant LVNV lost the case, Defendant Budzik cannot collect on this account.
  6. Defendant LVNV is not the owner of this alleged debt.
  7. Defendant LVNV has continued collection activities against Plaintiff.
  8. These continued collection activities include communications regarding this debt.

Defendants Budzik and LVNV Send Collection Letter To Plaintiff on October 7, 2011

  1. On October 7, 2011, Defendant LVNV directed further collection activities at Plaintiff through the use of a collection law firm, the Defendant Budzik.
  2. The Defendant collection law firm Budzik, purports to be an Illinois licensed law firm.
  3. There do not appear to be any lawyers at Defendant Budzik who are licensed to practice in Alabama.
  4. The Defendant Budzik has not registered to conduct business in the State of Alabama.
  5. The collection letter was written directly to the Plaintiff, and not to her counsel of record.
  6. The collection letter purports to collect on a “GE Capital” debt with the current creditor listed as “LVNV Funding, LLC.”
  7. The letter makes a remarkable number of statements and threats on a debt which was judicially determined on October 3, 2011, to not be owed by Plaintiff.
  8. The letter states “Your Account has been placed with our office to seek a voluntary resolution with you for the Total Amount Due on your account.”
  9. There is no amount due on this account despite the misrepresentation in this letter.
  10. The letter does not reference the Plaintiff’s victory in the Defendant LVNV collection lawsuit.
  11. The letter goes on to state “Accordingly, if you want to resolve this matter, we are offering a limited time opportunity for you to resolve your Current Balance of $3,870.98 for only $1,935.49!!! (unless it has already been paid).”
  12. This matter has already been resolved by the judicial determination on October 3, 2011.
  13. The letter continues in the first paragraph by saying “If you cannot pay the amount due today, please call us at 1-877-867-9201 to discuss the possibility of arranging a payment plan for a period of up to six months.”
  14. There is no amount due but yet this letter continues to inform the Plaintiff, who is represented, that she needs to hope that the Defendants LVNV and Budzik will be kind enough to allow her “the possibility of arranging a payment plan for a period of up to six months.”
  15. Despite the fact that the October 7, 2011, letter came from an unlicensed out-of-state law firm, which is not registered to do business in Alabama, the letter states “Please note that as your account has been placed with us to seek a voluntary resolution, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account at this time.”
  16. This violates the FDCPA by sending a letter from a law firm where the law firm admits that it has not even looked at “the particular circumstances of your account at this time.”
  17. This letter constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Alabama.
  18. The letter than goes on to threaten additional collection activities, which would include a second lawsuit against Plaintiff.
  19. The Defendants LVNV and Budzik law firm threatened Plaintiff as follows: “However, if you fail to contact this office, and such a voluntary resolution is not reached, our client [Defendant LVNV] will remove this account from our office and may consider additional remedies to recover the outstanding debt.”
  20. There is no debt to resolve.
  21. Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, had no obligation to contact this unlicensed, unregistered, out-of-state debt collection law firm named Budzik or to contact Defendant LVNV.
  22. The threat that Defendant LVNV “may consider additional remedies to recover the outstanding debt” can only mean a second lawsuit, collection calls, and/or additional collection letters.
  23. The Defendant LVNV had previously falsely reported to the credit bureaus that Plaintiff owed this debt when Plaintiff in fact did not owe the debt.
  24. The October 7, 2011, collection letter from Defendant Budzik on behalf of Defendant LVNV also stated that Defendant LVNV “may provide information to credit bureaus about an insolvency, delinquency, late payment, or default on your account to include in your credit report as allowed by law.”
  25. This is a separate and distinct threat of collection activities from the above-referenced “additional remedies to recover the outstanding debt.”
  26. There is no information about this non-owed debt that Defendant LVNV can report to the credit bureaus as there is no debt that is owed.
  27. There is no doubt that the October 7, 2011, collection letter from Defendant Budzik on behalf of Defendant LVNV was, in fact, a collection letter.
  28. The letter states very plainly “This is an attempt to collect a debt.  Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.  This communication is from a debt collector.”
  29. The Defendants Budzik and LVNV do not consider the matter closed based upon the dismissal with prejudice because they are not concerned with what any judge says about the account.
  30. The continued collection activities include a planned second lawsuit against Plaintiff for this debt.

Defendant LVNV Has Falsely Reported This Debt As Being Owed To

The Credit Reporting Agencies

  1. Defendant LVNV reported and has continued to report to the credit reporting agencies  that Plaintiff owes this money.
  2. Plaintiff did not and does not owe this money to Defendant LVNV.
  3. Defendant LVNV has a policy and procedure to refuse to properly credit report on consumers, like Plaintiff, who do not owe the alleged debt.  The reason is to keep false information on the credit report.  The false information consists of a balance shown as owed when Defendant LVNV knows no balance is owed.
  4. Defendant LVNV has promised through its subscriber agreements or contracts to accurately update accounts but Defendant LVNV has willfully, maliciously, recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently failed to follow this requirement as well as the requirements set forth under the FDCPA and state law, which has resulted in the intended consequences of this information remaining on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
  5. Defendant LVNV assumed a duty, through the subscriber agreement and other actions, to accurately report the balances and this duty was breached in a negligent, wanton, reckless, willful, intentional, and/or malicious manner.
  6. Defendant LVNV has a policy to “park” its accounts on at least one of the consumer’s credit report.  This is a term in the industry for keeping a false balance (or false account) on the credit report so that the consumer will be forced to pay off the balance in order to obtain a refinancing or to qualify for a loan or to increase the consumer’s credit score from the artificially lowered score which directly resulted from the Defendants’ intentional and malicious conduct.
  7. In parking or allowing the parking of an account, Defendant LVNV knows it is violating its obligation and duty under federal and state law to accurately report the account and the balance.
  8. Defendant LVNV knows that parking a balance will lead to false and defamatory information being published every time the Plaintiff’s credit report is accessed and this is the malicious and intentional design behind Defendant’s actions with the goal to force the Plaintiff to pay on an account Plaintiff does not owe.
  9. Defendant LVNV failed to properly maintain and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s credit information and Plaintiff’s credit report, concerning the account in question, thus violating state law and FDCPA as set forth in this Complaint.

 

Remaining Factual Allegations Against Defendants Budzik and LVNV

  1. The debt being collected is a consumer debt as defined by the FDCPA.
  2. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the FDCPA.
  3. Defendant LVNV is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.
  4. Defendant LVNV dismissing the case against the Plaintiff shows that Plaintiff does not owe this debt.
  5. Defendant Budzik is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA.
  6. Defendant LVNV has taken illegal aggressive actions in a continued effort to collect the alleged debt against Plaintiff.  These actions include the reporting of the debt to third parties, including consumer-reporting agencies, that Plaintiff owes the debt, that Plaintiff defaulted, and that the account was in collections with a balance currently owed.
  7. Defendant Budzik has taken illegal aggressive actions in a continued effort to collect the alleged debt against Plaintiff.
  8. Defendant LVNV has been sued repeatedly in Alabama for filing suits with no basis to do so.
  9. Defendant LVNV has been sued repeatedly in Alabama for filing suits with no intention of proving the allegations in the lawsuits.
  10. Defendant LVNV has been sued repeatedly in Alabama for false credit reporting.
  11. Defendant LVNV has been sued repeatedly in Alabama for continuing collection activities by demanding payments from consumers after the consumers have won their LVNV collection cases.
  12. Defendant LVNV has full knowledge of what it is doing by filing bogus lawsuits and continuing illegal collection activities after losing its collection lawsuits.
  13. A judgment was recently entered against Defendant LVNV by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, for its wrongful collection actions, including suing an Alabama consumer with no intention of proving its case and false credit reporting.
  14. Defendant Budzik has made the conscious decision to join in with Defendant LVNV to help Defendant LVNV collect debts that are not owed, as illustrated in the present case.
  15. The conduct of the Defendants have proximately caused Plaintiff past and future monetary loss, past and future damage to Plaintiff’s credit and credit worthiness, past and future mental distress and emotional anguish, and other damages that will be presented to the trier of fact.
  16. It is a practice of the Defendants to maliciously, willfully, recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently ignore and refuse to follow the requirements of the FDCPA and state law.
  17. All actions taken by employees, agents, servants, or representatives of any type for the Defendants were taken in the line and scope of such individual’s employment, agency or representation.
  18. All actions taken by the Defendants were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that their actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that their actions were taken in violation of the FDCPA and/or state law and/or that they knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the FDCPA and/or state law.
  19. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of wrongful and unlawful behavior with respect to accounts and/or consumer reports and as such Defendants are subject to punitive damages and statutory damages and all other appropriate measures to punish and deter similar future conduct by these Defendants and similar companies.
  20. Defendants LVNV and Budzik are liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by their collection employees and agents, including but not limited to violations of the FDCPA and Alabama tort law, in its attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.
  21. All of the above-described collection activities made to Plaintiff by Defendant LVNV and Budzik were made in violation of the FDCPA, including (but not limited to) §§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), 1692f(6), and 1692g.
  22. The above-detailed conduct by the Defendants LVNV and Budzik 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.
  23. This series of abusive collection actions by Defendants LVNV and Budzik caused Plaintiff stress and anguish.
  24. Defendants LVNV’s and Budzik’s attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff and refusal to stop violating the law is an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and Plaintiff’s right to be left alone.
  25. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal actions by Defendants in the form of anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy.


NEGLIGENT AND WANTON HIRING AND SUPERVISION

  1. Defendants LVNV and Budzik 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 acts and omissions of Defendants LVNV and Budzik constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to the Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) §§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f, 1692f(1), 1692f(6), and 1692g.
  3. As a result of Defendant LVNV’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages; statutory damages; and reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs from Defendants LVNV and Budzik.

COUNT II.

INVASION OF PRIVACY

 

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
  2. Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Defendants LVNV and Budzik violated Alabama state 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. Defendants LVNV and Budzik 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. Defendants LVNV and Budzik 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. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
  4. The conduct of these Defendants LVNV and Budzik, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by Defendants LVNV and Budzik which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
  5. 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 Defendants LVNV and Budzik.
  6. All acts of Defendants LVNV and Budzik were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such Defendants LVNV and Budzik are subject to punitive damages.

COUNT III.

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. Defendants LVNV’s and Budzik’s collectors are allowed and encouraged to break the law in order to collect debts.
  3. Defendants LVNV and Budzik are aware of the wrongful conduct of its collectors.
  4. Defendants LVNV and Budzik 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 Defendants LVNV and Budzik are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.


COUNT IV.

NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

  1. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants LVNV and Budzik acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  3. Defendants LVNV and Budzik violated all of the duties Defendants LVNV and Budzik had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
  4. It was foreseeable, and Defendants LVNV and Budzik did in fact foresee it, the actions of Defendants LVNV and Budzik would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
  5. Defendants LVNV and Budzik acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
  6. Defendants LVNV and Budzik invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
  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 Defendants LVNV and Budzik, Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth in this Complaint.


COUNT V.

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

  1. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants LVNV and Budzik, by and through the actions of Budzik, constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Alabama.
  3. The collection law firm of Budzik has no Alabama licensed attorney.
  4. Despite this fact, it sent a collection letter, on its letterhead, to Plaintiff.
  5. Defendant Budzik, and its principal (Defendant LVNV), had no right to conduct the practice of law in Alabama.
  6. This was an intentional act.
  7. Plaintiff claims all damages allowable under the law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendants for all damages allowable (including statutory, actual, compensatory, nominal and punitive), costs, expenses, fees, injunctive relief to prevent further violations, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 /s/ John G. Watts                                            

John G. Watts (WAT056)

M. Stan Herring (HER037)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:        

Watts & Herring, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 879-2447

(888) 522-7167 facsimile

john@wattsherring.com

stan@wattsherring.com

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY IN THIS CAUSE.

 

                                                                        /s/ John G. Watts                                

                                                                        Attorney for Plaintiff


Serve defendants via certified mail at the following addresses:

LVNV Funding, LLC

c/o CT Corporation System

2 North Jackson Street

Suite 605

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

 

Budzik & Dynia, LLC

c/o Alfred S. Dynia

4849 N. Milwaukee Avenue

Suite 801

Chicago, Illinois 60630


[1] Any reference the FDCPA or any part thereof encompasses all relevant parts and subparts thereto.

[2] LVNV means LVNV directly or through its debt collectors, employees and agents (including any collection law firm) that sued Plaintiff, credit reported against Plaintiff, or otherwise took any collection action against Plaintiff.

[3] Budzik means Budzik directly or through its debt collectors, employees and agents that took any collection action against Plaintiff.


Previous post:

Next post: