CASE UPDATES

Sidney Gelfand v. I.C. System, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
Case No.: 9:08-cv-80633

Debt Collector attempting to collect funds they are not legally entitled to collect.
Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division on behalf of Mr. Sidney Gelfand concerning an alleged debt attempted to be collected by I.C. System, Inc. for a gym membership which had been previously paid and the contract fulfilled.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). Mr. Gelfand remitted his final payment to World Gym and shortly thereafter I.C. System, Inc. contacted him in an attempt to collect additional funds not owed.

The matter is still pending.

Shirley Gelfand v. I.C. System, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
Case No.: 9:08-cv-80631

Debt Collector attempting to collect funds they are not legally entitled to collect.
Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division on behalf of Mrs. Shirley Gelfand concerning an alleged debt attempted to be collected by I.C. System, Inc. for gym membership dues after being released from her contract.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). After Mrs. Shirley Gelfand was released from her contract with World Gym, I.C. System, Inc. contacted her in an attempt to collect additional funds not owed.

The matter is still pending.

Felicia Posey v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc.

Case No. 8:08-cv-700-T-30MSS

Failure of Debt Collector to Cease and Desist from Making Telephone Calls After Receiving A Written Demand To Do So
Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of Ms. Felicia Posey concerning an alleged debt being collected by Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. d/b/a Chase Receivables arising from an alleged debt for the purchase of a school alumni directory.

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). Ms. Posey sent a written demand to Chase Receivables to cease and desist from communicating with her in regards to collection of the alleged debt. Chase Receivables continued to call Ms. Posey’s cell phone after receiving her written to demand to cease communications in violation of the FDCPA.

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

John Veenkamp v. The Sagres Company

Case No. 8:08-cv-237-T-17TBM

 

Misleading or Deceptive Telephone Call

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of Mr. John Veenkamp concerning a telephone call he received from a debt collector, The Sagres Company. The complaint alleges that The Sagres Company failed to properly identify themselves as a debt collector at the on set of the telephone call and that the purpose of the telephone was to collect a debt.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). The complaint alleged that The Sagres Company intentionally engaged in conduct that was deceptive or misleading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e when it failed to properly identify itself as a debt collector at the beginning of the telephone call. Also, the complaint alleged that The Sagres Company failed to provide Veenkamp with any written notice of the debt sought within the time prescribed 15.U.S.C § 1692g(a).

 

The matter settled prior to trial.  

 

Jonathan Frisard v. Professional Debt Mediation, Inc.

Case No. 8:08-cv-259-T-17MAP

 

Abusive and Deceptive Debt Collection Practices  

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of Mr. Jonathan Frisard concerning an alleged debt being collected by Professional Debt Mediation, Inc. arising from a rental agreement with The Pointe at Kings Avenue, the owner of an apartment complex in Brandon, Florida.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). The complaint alleges Mr. Frisard was the subject of abusive debt collection practices when he received telephone calls from representatives of Professional Debt Mediation, Inc. who willfully and intentional used abusive language, yelled and shouted at Frisard in an effort to collect an alleged debt. Furthermore, the complaint alleged the amount of the debt was misrepresented to Frisard and gave him the false impression that the representative of Professional Debt Mediation, Inc. was associated with an attorney.

 

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Suzanne Lange v. American Medical Collection Agency and Quest Diagnostics, Inc.

Case No. 08-cc-011249

 

Misrepresentation of Amount Owed & Deceptive Debt Collection Practices

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in Hillsborough County Court in Tampa, Florida on behalf of Ms. Suzanne Lange concerning an alleged medical services debt being collected by American Medical Collection Agency on behalf of Quest Diagnostics, Inc.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleged violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). The complaint alleges that after Ms. Lange’s insurance paid Quest Diagnostics for medical services rendered to her, Quest Diagnostics continued to attempt to collect the previously paid amounts through American Medical Collection Agency.

 

The matter is still pending.

 

Marcia Gaalswijk-Knetzke v. The Receivable Management Services Corp.

Case No. 8:08-cv-00493-RAL-TGW

 

Deceptive Debt Collection Practice  

Saxon Gilmore, along with co-counsel, has filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of Mrs. Marcia Gaalswijk-Knetzke concerning an alleged medical services debt being collected by The Receivable Management Services Corporation on behalf of United Healthcare.

 

The class-action complaint in the above-styled case alleges violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”).  The complaint alleges that The Receivable Management Services Corp. failed to properly advise Ms. Gaalswijk-Knetzke of her debt validation rights under the FDCPA and purposefully utilized poor quality paper and gray ink to obscure the debt validation notice.

 

In response to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss which was denied by the Court as set forth in this Order. The matter is still pending.

 

Gene Sakowicz v. United Recovery Systems, LP

Case No. 5:07-cv-415-OC-10GRJ

 

Harassing Telephone Calls by Debt Collector to Client’s Work Phone

Saxon Gilmore filed a case in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division on behalf of Mr. Gene Sakowicz concerning numerous harassing telephone calls by a debt collector, United Recovery Systems, LP. The complaint alleges that in May of 2007, Mr. Sakowicz became the target of an aggressive collection campaign when he began to receive telephone calls on his dedicated work cell phone from an employee of the debt collector, United Recovery Systems, LP. Mr. Sakowicz was receiving up to five (5) telephone calls on his work cell phone from debt collector United Recovery Systems, LP in a single day. During most of the phone calls, Mr. Sakowicz asked the debt collector not to call him on his work cell phone and that any future telephone calls regarding the Alleged Debt be placed to him on his home phone.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleges violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”). FDCPA's provision § 1692c(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer at the consumer’s place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such communication. Another FDCPA alleged in the complaint concerns § 1692d. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692d provides, in pertinent part, a debt collector may not cause a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number, use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

 

Additionally, under Florida Statutes § 559.72 a debt collector may not willfully communicate with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.

 

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Maria A. Lorenzo and Victoria H. Fernandez v. Wagner & Hunt, P.A.

Case No. 8:07-cv-00146-T-27T-MB

 

Violation of Debt Validation Provisions

Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway, Gibbons, Lash & Wilcox, P.A. sued a South Florida law firm in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on behalf of Ms. Maria Lorenzo and Ms. Victoria Fernandez for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The complaint alleges that the form collection letters utilized by the debt collector law firm impermissibly require the consumer plaintiffs to dispute the validity of the debt "in writing", in violation of the FDCPA's debt validation provisions, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

 

The matter is settled.

 

Lisa A. Lansdowne v. LTD Financial Services, LP

Case No. 3:07-cv-00455-J-16-MCR

 

Harassing Telephone Calls by Debt Collector to Client’s Work Phone and Contacting Client after Receiving Notification of Attorney Representation

Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway, Gibbons, Lash & Wilcox, P.A. settled a case pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on behalf of Ms. Lisa Lansdowne concerning multiple harassing telephone calls she received from this defendant debt collector at her place of employment. Ms. Lansdowne had advised the debt collector that she was not permitted to receive personal calls at work, but, they continued to contact her. Concerned about the negative impact this could have on her job, she located our law firm on the internet and within minutes was speaking directly with a partner in the firm's consumer rights department. With Ms. Lansdowne on the phone, the lawyer assigned to her case contacted the defendant debt collector and advised that Ms. Lansdowne was now represented by the firm and that all future correspondence, via telephone or otherwise, should be directed to Saxon and Gilmore rather than Ms. Lansdowne. The defendant debt collector was also advised that Ms. Lansdowne disputed the validity of the underlying debt.

 

Several days later, despite receiving notification of Saxon Gilmore's representation, the defendant debt collector again contacted Ms. Lansdowne at her place of business. Within a few days, the above-styled case was filed alleging violations of the FDCPA's provision governing communication with consumers. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) generally prohibits debt collectors from communicating with consumers represented by an attorney and 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) generally prohibits debt collectors from communicating with consumers at work when the consumer's employer prohibits such communication. In addition to the FDCPA claims, Saxon Gilmore also brought claims against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), Fla. Stat. § 559.72(4), (7) and (18), which generally prohibits the same abusive and harassing debt collection activities as the FDCPA.

 

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Cynthia J. Johnston v. DirectTV Inc. and Allied Interstate, Inc.

Case No. 1:07-cv-217 SPM/AK

 

Collection & Reporting of Erroneous Debt

Saxon Gilmore has a case pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, on behalf of Ms. Cynthia Johnston concerning an erroneous debt with Direct TV that she discovered on her Experian Credit Report. The complaint alleges in November 2005, Ms. Johnston opened an account with DIRECTV in order to receive satellite television programming at her residence. At no time prior to November 2005 did Ms. Johnston receive satellite television programming from DIRECTV or receive any other type of services from DIRECTV. The alleged debt was being reported as past due to DIRECTV from October 2005.

 

The alleged debt was the only negative item on Ms. Johnston’s Experian Credit Report and Ms. Johnston did not have any accounts with DIRECTV in October 2005. Ms. Johnston never received a bill or an account statement from DIRECTV indicating that the alleged debt was owed in October 2005. Even after informing DIRECTV of the inaccurate debt, Ms. Johnston was still contacted by three different debt collectors on separate occasions in attempts to collect the erroneous DIRECTV debt.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleges violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”) and Florida common law. FDCPA's provision 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692f(1) and  1692e(10). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Additionally, under § 1692e(10) a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. In addition to the FDCPA claims, Saxon Gilmore also brought claims against the defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the Alleged Debt, failing to review all relevant information available to the debt collectors in this case.

 

The matter settled prior to trial.

 

Linda L. Burke v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

Case No. 8:07-cv-01580-EAK-MSS

 

Disclosing Debt Information to Person Other than Debtor & Unauthorized Communication with Debtor Represented by Counsel

Saxon Gilmore has a case pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of Ms. Linda L. Burke concerning harassing telephone calls from debt collector, United Collection Bureau, Inc., (“UCB”). The complaint alleges UCB telephoned Ms. Burke’s neighbor and informed the neighbor that Ms. Burke owed money and demanded that the neighbor relay a message to Ms. Burke. Additionally, after counsel for Saxon Gilmore contacted UCB and informed UCB that Saxon Gilmore represented Ms. Burke and requested UCB to cease all communications with Ms. Burke and directed that all future communications regarding the debt be directed to Saxon Gilmore, UCB contacted Ms. Burke directly in an effort to collect the debt.

 

The complaint in the above-styled case alleges violations of the 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida Statutes § 559.55 et seq., Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) provisions governing communication with consumers. FDCPA’s 15 U.S.C. § 1692b provides, in pertinent part, that any debt collector or bill collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer shall not state that such consumer owes any debt. The complaint also alleges UCB violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) by communicating with a debtor who is known to be represented by counsel. Furthermore, Saxon Gilmore alleges the debt collector violated Florida Statutes § 559.72, which is the Florida equivalent of the federal provisions mentioned above.

 

The matter is still pending.

 

CALL OUR 24 HOUR TOLL FREE HOTLINE
866.553.3272