Complaint

Cal. Super. - 3rd Dist.September 11, 2018

10 1 12 13 14 15 17 18 |] 19 20° 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 || Attorneys for Plaintiff e - ORIGINAL Todd M. Friedman (216752) Adrian R. Bacon (280332) Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. : 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 supehs Th ED kh . Woodland Hills, CA 91367 County of Placer» Phone: 877-206-4741 SEP 11 20 Fax: 866-633-0228 : i: 1 18 fe tfriedman@toddflaw.com : os dake Chatters abacon@toddflaw.com aegis atieer & Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA | FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER LIMITED JURISDICTION poe ) Case No. op : MILDRED WATTS, ) wcv0071234 Hert ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, : ) (Amount not to exceed $10, 000). vs. ) 1. Violation of Roisenithial Fair’ Debt ) Collection Practices Act PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, ) 2. Violation of Telephone Consumer . LLC; and DOES 1 - 10 inclusive, ) Protection Act ) Defendant. ) JURY DEMANDED ) _): I. INTRODUCTION : 1. This is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer for Defendant’s: violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1788, et seq: (hereinafter “RFDCPA”) which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, i} and. unfair practices. Ancillary to the claims above, Plaintiff further alleges claims. for Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act., 47 USc. §227, et seq. ‘ (hereinafter, “TCPAY). II. PARTIES _ Plaintiff, MILDRED WATTS (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person residing i in Placer County in the state of California and is a “debtor” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(h). | Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). Complaint - 1 catuorto, Deputy |... e n e 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, PORTFOLIO RECO VERY ASSOCIATES, LLC (“Defendant”), is a company engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debt from Plaintiff which qualifies as a “consumer debt,” as defi ned by Cal. Civ. Code §1788.2(f). Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts alleged to be due |. them, and therefore is a “debt collector” as defined by the RFDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code.§1788 . 2(¢). ab : Further, Defendant uses an “automatic telephone dialing system” as defined by the TCPA , 47 poke U.S.C. §227 and is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 4. The above named Defendant, and its subsidiaries and agents, are. caltectively. referred to as “Defendants.” The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated hereitias:a DOE is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the Complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when-such identities become known. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, each and ‘ever y: Defendant was acting as an agent and/or employee of each of the other Defendants atid was acting within the course and scope of said agency and/or employment with the full knowl edge and consent of each of the other Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the mts : and/or omissions complained of herein was made tows to, and ratified by, e ach of: the other: : Defendants. | Il. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. At various and multiple times prior to the filing of the instant complaint, includ ing within the one year preceding the filing of this complaint, Defendant contacted P laintiff in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. 7. From in or around early September 2017 and continuing through the middle of January of 2018, Defendant called Plaintiff's cell phone ending in -1123 numerous times . 8. Defendant called from phone numbers belonging to them, including wit hout limitation (619) 378-1461; (610) 628-2231; (757) 963-7007; and (800) 772-1413. 2, Defendant’s calls were excessive and harassing to Plaintiff. Complaint - 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Defendant’s calls were made to Plaintiff in connection with collection onan’ |. : alleged debt. 11. Defendant also used an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47: U.S.C, § 227(a)(1), to place its repeated collection calls to Plaintiffs seeking to collect the debt fs allegedly owed. ees 12. Defendant’s calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as. defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). on : 13. Defendanit’s calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiffs incur a charge for incoming calls pursuant to.47 US.C. §227()(1). : 14, §1788.17 of the RFDCPA mandates that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of Sections: 16 92b'to | 1692}, inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Tit le 15 of the coe ; United States Code statutory regulations contained within the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692d , and: |) §1692d(S). 15. Defendant’s conduct violated the RFDCPA in multiple ways, including but not limited to: ar | a) Causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously to annoy Plaintiff va (Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(d)); a3 b) Communicating, by telephone or in person, with Plaintiff with such - frequency as to be unreasonable and to constitute an harassment to Plaintiff under the circumstances (Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(€)); - c) Causing Plaintiffs telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously with intent . : to harass, annoy or abuse Plaintiff (15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5)); d) Communicating with Plaintiff at times or places which were known or should have been known to be inconvenient for Plaintiff (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1)); and e) Engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse Plaintiff (15 U.S.C. § 1692d)). 16. Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA by: a) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or p re- recorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, Complaint - 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call (47 USC §227(b)(A)(iii)). 17. As aresult of the above violations of the RFDCPA and TCPA, Plaintiff suffered | and continues to suffer injury to Plaintiff's feelings, personal humiliation, embarrassment, mental | anguish and emotional distress, and Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and attorney’s fees. COUNT I: VIOLATION OF ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 18. Plaintiff reincorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. . 19, To the extent that Defendant’s actions, counted above, violated the RFDCPA, those actions were done knowingly and willfully. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for the following: A. Actual damages; B. Statutory damages for willful and negligent violations; o: Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; - D. For such other and further relief as may be just and proper. » COUNT I: VIOLATION OF TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 21. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple | negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above |. - cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.. 22. Asaresult of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. $227 et seq., Plaintif f is entitled an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pu rsuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 23. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to ea ch and every one Complaint - 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the above cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 ef seq.. 24. Asaresult of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 US.C. §.227 et seq., Plaintiff is entitled an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). : 25. ‘Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future. | oo | PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered against the Defendant for the following: : A. Asaresult of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1),. Plaintiff is entitled to and request $500 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B); B. Asaresult of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to and requests treble damages, as. provided by statute, up to $1,500, for each and every violation, pursuant - to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C); and C. Any and all other relief that the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF HEREBY REQUESTS A TRIAL BY JURY 26. Pursuant to her right under Article 1, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of California, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted this 11th Day OKSeptember, 20 By: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P. C, Attorney for Plaintiff Complaint - 5