CFPB

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.

LIT COMMENTARY

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20−cv−04326 

COMPLAINT, JURY TRIAL (Doc. 1)

Sarah Farrow, Plaintiff,

v. 

Paramount Recovery Systems, Defendant.

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

follows:

JURISDICTION

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.

PARTIES

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).

 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

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.

COUNT I

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.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the

Defendant:

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.

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

Dated: December 22, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Jody B. Burton
Jody B. Burton, Esq. CT Bar # 422773
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: jburton@lemberglaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20−cv−04326

ORDER FOR CONFERENCE AND DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Southern District of Texas

ENTERED

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

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.

Vermont Lawyer Uses a Known Texas Trial Tactic to Convince Store Clerk to Listen to Her False and Bad Faith Claims

A Vermont lawyer has had her license suspended on an interim basis after she was accused of pulling a gun on a store clerk. Texas would condone her actions.

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. Required fields are marked *

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