A collection law firm in New Jersey is facing a pair of class-action lawsuits that have been filed against it in Pennsylvania, accusing the firm of not sending mandatory notices required by law when suing individuals and for enrolling individuals in automatic payment plans without first obtaining their consent.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Augustine v. The Law Offices of Hayt Hayt & Landau can be accessed by clicking here. A copy of the complaint in the case of Hilliard v. The Law Offices of Hayt Hayt & Landau can be accessed by clicking here.
In Augustine, the plaintiff was sued by the defendant for an unpaid credit card debt. The plaintiff — who was the defendant in the collection suit — won and the creditor appealed the ruling. The creditor allegedly failed to include a “Duty to Appear at Arbitration Hearing” notification when it filed the appeal, which violates state law in Pennsylvania. The omission is being cited by the plaintiff as a violation of Section 1692f of the FDCPA for allegedly engaging in unfair or unconscionable means to collection on a debt and Section 1692e(5) of the FDCPA for taking an action that can not be legally taken and Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA for making false representations and deceptive means when collecting on a debt. The plaintiff is seeking to include any other individuals who were sued by the defendant where the defendant did not include the required notice under state law.
In Hilliard
