CACH is a large debt buyer collection agency that operates under a model of getting collection attorneys, such as Bonewicz out of Chicago, to send out collection letters and calls to consumers in Alabama.
Not only should debt collectors — such as CACH and Bonewicz — not collect on debts that are not owed, but they must follow the rules. Follow the law.
Debt collection is fine as long as it is done legally.
This suit shows an example of debt collectors allegedly not giving proper disclosures and warnings to consumers. This is not a secret or an obscure thing — instead it is well understood that collectors must leave voicemails legally, if they leave messages at all….
If they don’t, then there is a price to pay. Normally collectors recognize this and resolve cases where they leave illegal voicemails.
Here is a video if you are wondering if these types of suits are unfair to collectors….
You can read the complaint below or you can click on it here — Alabama FDCPA suit against CACH And Bonewicz.
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:
- This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Defendants and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.
PARTIES
- Plaintiff Alicia Kindred (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person who is a resident of Alabama.
- Defendant CACH, LLC (“CACH”) is a foreign debt buyer and collection entity that engages in the business of debt collection in Alabama.
- Defendant John C. Bonewicz, P.C. (“Bonewicz”) is a foreign debt collection law firm that engages in the business of debt collection in Alabama.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
- 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].
- Plaintiff allegedly incurred 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).
- Plaintiff is a consumer.
- Defendant CACH is considered a “debt collector” and began engaging in debt collection activities against Plaintiff.
- Defendant Bonewicz is considered a “debt collector” and began engaging in debt collection activities against Plaintiff.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz failed to make all required disclosures to Plaintiffs in violation of the FDCPA.
- The collection methods employed by Defendants CACH and Bonewicz were harassing and illegal.
- Defendant Bonewicz made a number of harassing and repeated phone calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz refused to give all disclosures as required when calling and/or leaving voicemails in their efforts to collect the debt.
- The intent and motive behind the calls is to harass Plaintiff into paying CACH and Bonewicz.
- Each Defendant acted as an agent for each other Defendant.
- Defendant Bonewicz acted as an agent for Defendant CACH in collecting the alleged debt against Plaintiff.
- Each Defendant approved of, ratified, and/or directed the collection efforts each made against Plaintiff.
NEGLIGENT AND WANTON HIRING AND SUPERVISION
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz negligently and/or wantonly hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors (including each other) 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.
- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
- The acts and omissions of Defendants CACH and Bonewicz and their agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, violations of 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(11), and 1692f.
- As a result of Defendants CACH and Bonewicz’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs.
COUNT II.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
- Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Defendants CACH and Bonewicz violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
- 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).
- 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).
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz and/or their 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.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz and their 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.
- Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
- The conduct of the Defendants CACH and Bonewicz and their agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy, which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
- This misconduct caused Plaintiff damages.
- All acts of Defendants CACH and Bonewicz and their agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such they are subject to punitive damages.
COUNT III.
NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND
SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT DEBT COLLECTORS
- Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz 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 IV
NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT
- All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz owe a duty to anyone they come in contact with to act reasonably so as to not unreasonably cause harm.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz owe a duty to consumers against whom they are collecting to act reasonably.
- All of the actions described in this Complaint demonstrate that did not act reasonably toward the Plaintiff.
- The Defendants CACH and Bonewicz, by their described conduct, breached their duty to act reasonably toward the Plaintiff.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff which were of the precise nature that Defendants CACH and Bonewicz anticipated causing when they breached their duty to act reasonably.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz knew, or should have known, that their conduct was likely to lead to the Plaintiff’s injuries yet they acted despite this knowledge.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz acted with full knowledge and with the design and intent to cause harm to Plaintiff.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz were successful in their design, intent, and plan to cause harm to Plaintiff and this is the corporate policy of Defendants CACH and Bonewicz when dealing with consumers who do not pay debts that Defendants CACH and Bonewicz allege are owed.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz violated all of the duties Defendants CACH and Bonewicz had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
- It was foreseeable, and Defendants CACH and Bonewicz did in fact foresee it, the actions of the Defendants CACH and Bonewicz would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint.
- Defendants CACH and Bonewicz invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
- Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused Plaintiff damages.
- As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of Defendants CACH and Bonewicz, Plaintiff has suffered damage as set forth in this Complaint.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendants CACH and Bonewicz for $10,000, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled to receive.
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
Serve defendants via certified mail at the following addresses:
CACH, LLC
c/o CT Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street
Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
John C. Bonewicz, P.C.
c/o John C. Bonewicz
8001 Lincoln Avenue
Suite 402
Skokie, IL 60076
Loading 
