EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A class-action complaint has been filed in California, accusing a collector of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F by overshadowing the 30-day validation window while also accusing the defendant of violating a new law in California because it has neither obtained nor applied for a license to operate in the state.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-05887.
The plaintiff received a collection letter — which was not included as an exhibit in the complaint. The letter allegedly stated that the unpaid account may be placed with “the associations attorney or collection vendor for action” “after 15 days from the original due date” without stating what the original due date was. The letter, which was allegedly sent on August 23, also demanded payment by September 27 which was less than 30 days after it was received by the plaintiff.
The complaint also accuses the defendant of confusing a least sophisticated consumer because its name, “United Trustee Services” gave the impression that the defendant “may be part of a government entity or a bankruptcy court or an agency affiliated with the United States.”
Finally, the complaint accuses the defendant of neither having obtained nor applied for a license under California’s Debt Collection Licensing Act, which would mean it was not allowed to collect debts in the state.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692g of the FDCPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It seeks to include anyone who received similar letters from the defendant.
