The Chasin’ a Baby FDCPA Case, Assigned to Judges Hittner and Bray, S.D. Texas

Plaintiff informed Paramount that “Hunter King” was unknown to her. Plaintiff informed Paramount that her son’s name was Hunter but he was born in 2017.


OCT 29, 2021 UPDATE: No more cryin’ babies here, a settlement is achieved. Case dismissed.

This should be interesting, especially since the complaint alleges the Texas debt collection company is pursuing an individual that’s a baby.

AUG 26, 2021 & OCT 3, 2021 – SILENCE; There’s nothing new on the docket after checking, just the last corrupt order by Judge David Hittner sealing case.


It’s June 21, 2021 and we just pulled down the following motion for a protective order filed on 10th June, which is totally outrageous considering its a debt collection case and there is absolutely nothing trade secret or confidential.

Maybe baby mamma Farrow is a wannabe federal judge lookin’ to congress to allow for a secret society but the last time we looked at cases around the country and from the 5th circuit, the emphasis was on not allowing these frivolous motions, joint or otherwise. We’ll be watchin’ closely.

Update July 4, 2021: ORDER granting 20 Motion for Protective Order.Signed by Judge David Hittner, 06/14/2021. (It wasn’t there on June 21, 2021).

Update: 19th April, 2021. We’re attachin’ the Rule 16 Schedule as we enter phase II, experts and discovery.

The Parties file this Joint Motion for Entry of a Confidentiality and Protective Order.

The Parties agree that the documents and information relevant to the claims and defenses in this matter may include trade secrets, confidential research development, technology, or other proprietary information belonging to a third-party’s, defendant’s and/or the plaintiff’s personal income, credit and other confidential information.

As a result, to protect the use, handling and disclosure of any such information that is produced in this matter, the Parties request that the Court enter the Stipulated Protective Order attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

All Parties agree to the form and substance of the Stipulated Protective Order attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” as evidenced by the signature below.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Parties respectfully request the Court grant this Motion, and entre the Protective Order attached as Exhibit “A.”




By: /s/ Jody Burton

Jody B. Burton, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897
Tel: 203.653-2250 ext 5501
Fax: 203-653-3424



By: /s/ Keith Wier

Keith Wier
58151 Legacy Circle, Suite 600
Plano, Texas 75024
Tel: 469.626.5180
Fax: 972.767.4246
Mobile: 713.503.0529


I hereby certify that on the 10th day of June, 2021, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following

Jody B. Burton, Esq.
43 Danbury Road,
3rd Floor Wilton,
CT 06897
Tel: 203.653-2250 ext 5501
Fax: 203-653-3424

/s/ Keith Wier

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20−cv−04326 


Sarah Farrow, Plaintiff,


Paramount Recovery Systems, Defendant.

For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Sarah Farrow, by undersigned counsel, states as



1. This action arises out of the Defendant’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt.

2. Supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the Defendant transacts business in this District and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in this District.


4. The Plaintiff, Sarah Farrow (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in Houston, Texas, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

5. The Defendant, Paramount Recovery Systems (“Paramount”), is a Texas business entity with an address of 7524 Bosque Boulevard, Suite L, Waco, Texas 76712, operating as a collection agency, and is a “debt collector” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).



A. The Debt

6. A financial obligation (the “Debt”) was allegedly incurred to an original creditor (the “Creditor”).

7. The Debt arose from services provided by the Creditor which were primarily for family, personal or household purposes and which meets the definition of a “debt” under
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

8. The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Paramount for collection, or Paramount was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt.

9. The Defendant attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in “communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).

B. Paramount Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

10. On or around February 4, 2020, Paramount called Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Debt.

11. Paramount advised Plaintiff that the Debt was incurred by “Hunter King” for a medical bill with the date of service in 2014.

12. Plaintiff informed Paramount that “Hunter King” was unknown to her. Plaintiff informed Paramount that her son’s name was Hunter but he was born in 2017. As such, Plaintiff disputed the validity and ownership of the Debt.

13. In response, Paramount stated that it would notate its system accordingly, and further warned Plaintiff that the Debt would appear on her credit as unpaid debt.

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

14. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

15. As a direct consequence of the Defendant’s acts, practices and conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration and embarrassment.


VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

16. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.

17. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d in that Defendant engaged in behavior the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt.

18. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e in that Defendant used false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt.

19. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) in that Defendant threatened to communicate false credit information.

20. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f in that Defendant used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

21. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited provisions.

22. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s violations.


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the


1. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against the Defendant;

2. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A)

against the Defendant;

3. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against the Defendant;

4. Actual damages from the Defendant for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent invasions of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial for the Plaintiff;
5. Punitive damages; and

6. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.


Dated: December 22, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Jody B. Burton
Jody B. Burton, Esq. CT Bar # 422773
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20−cv−04326


Southern District of Texas


January 26, 2021

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

1. Counsel shall appear for an initial pretrial and scheduling conference before:

United States Magistrate Judge Peter Bray on April 7, 2021 at 10:30 AM Courtroom 703, 7th Floor,515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas

2. Counsel shall file with the clerk within fifteen days from receipt of this order a certificate listing all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, affiliates, parent corporations, or other entities that are financially interested in the outcome of this litigation. If a group can be specified by a general description, individual listing is not necessary. Underline the name of each corporation whose securities are publicly traded. If new parties are added or if additional persons or entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the litigation are identified at any time during the pendency of this litigation, then each counsel shall promptly file an amended certificate with the clerk.

3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) requires defendant(s) to be served within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. The failure of plaintiff(s) to file proof of service within 90 days after the filing of the complaint may result in dismissal of this action by the court on its own initiative.

4. After the parties confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), counsel shall prepare and file not less than 10 days before the conference a joint discovery/case management.

5. The court will enter a scheduling order at the conference.

6. Counsel who file or remove an action must serve a copy of this order with the summons and complaint or with the notice of removal.

7. Attendance by an attorney who has authority to bind the party is required at the conference.

8. Counsel shall discuss with their clients and each other whether alternative dispute resolution is appropriate and at the conference shall advise the court of the results of their discussions.

9. A person litigating pro se is bound by the requirements imposed upon counsel in this Order.

10. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action and assessment of fees and costs.

By Order of the Court

Judge’s Verbal Terroristic Threats End in Criminal Arrest in Georgia

Ain’t it sad that the Federal Judiciary in Texas is even corrupt when it comes to false threats of violence targeted at elders….

A Threat’s A Threat, Unless it’s a Texas Lawyer

Two articles about death threats. Meanwhile in Texas, a lawyer can threaten two elders with serious but false accusations with impunity.

Attorney-Privilege Does Not Apply to Threats of Violence Statements says 8th Circuit

The attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed and protects disclosures necessary to obtain informed legal advice. Threats of violence do not count.

U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:20-cv-04326

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Farrow v. Paramount Recovery Systems
Assigned to: Judge David Hittner
Demand: $25,000
Cause: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Date Filed: 12/22/2020
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit
Jurisdiction: Federal Question


Date Filed # Docket Text
06/14/2021 21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified.(ealexander, 4) (Entered: 06/14/2021)
06/10/2021 20 MOTION for Protective Order by Paramount Recovery Systems, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/1/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wier, William) (Entered: 06/10/2021)
The Chasin’ a Baby FDCPA Case, Assigned to Judges Hittner and Bray, S.D. Texas
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top