Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by Clydesmom66 on Today at 06:00:25 AM »
One more thought.  Want further proof it is a scam:  ask them how you can resolve this today.  If they want payment by prepaid debit/credit card, I-Tunes gift card or Western Union it is a SCAM.  Argue back that you can only send a cashier's check and watch how they attempt to tell you no way.  They want money that is untraceable. 
2
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by Clydesmom66 on Today at 05:57:23 AM »
Thanks for your reply, Clydesmom66. Maybe you're right and this is a scam. When I spoke to the manager, he did provide me with a name and address for a collections agency based out of Buffalo, NY. I verified that the business name is a registered LLC in the State of NY (they registered in April 2017). The phone number I called them at is also registered to that CA. Unless he was flat out lying to me about who they were, they aren't really a phantom -- I know who they are and can serve them. Whether this CA is really collecting on behalf of the JDB is the question, right?

Perhaps you misread -- when I spoke with the manager at the CA, they provided me their contact info -- Business name, address, telephone number, etc. That is how I can serve them.

Buffalo NY?  The very cradle of fraudulent collections.  Even if you did manage to serve them you will waste a lot of time and possibly money because they will simply fold up their tents and go out of business long before you ever see a verdict or any money.  Then they will open up a brand new business under a new name and start all over.  Proof of that is they came into existence in April 2017 right before they started calling you.  Another problem is that scammers have a nasty habit of using the name of a real business to convince the consumer they are real.  You need to consider that the scammer gave you the name of a real business that has never heard of you or contacted you.

I didn't misunderstand.  In your first post you said this:

"I asked for their contact info so I could send a C&D notice, and he refused. He also refused to provide his name or the name of his company."

As far as the TCPA portion of the claim is concerned, I technically own both my wife's phone and her phone line (she isn't on the phone account at all). So aren't they technically calling my phone in that case? Can't I also just add my wife's name onto the lawsuit? I know that she wouldn't mind.

You could sue as a married couple and that could work.  Who owns the phone is not the standard.  Who they actually called and reached IS.

I also thought it would hold more weight being that it was someone else's phone they are dialing. Isn't a big portion of the TCPA about privacy? Maybe I need to go back and re-educate myself on the law a bit -- but I was under the impression that it was a violation for a debt collector to leave messages discussing a consumer's finances with others (e.g. they can't tell everyone you know that you owe a debt). That's also why I figured that the CA leaving messages at my father's office was a very clear violation.

It depends on what the message was at your father's office.  The wording is extremely important.  If they revealed too much then yes it is a violation.  Yes, you could sue.  The problem is that you will not collect from an agency out of Buffalo as I said above.

Do you think there is any worth in submitting this claim to JAMS, the JDB and CA? If the JDB doesn't respond, then clearly this is a scam. Otherwise, wouldn't they write me a letter stating that my claims hold no merit since they never hired the CA?

No, it is not worth submitting to JAMS.  The problem you have is this claim is not subject to the card agreement.  You are alleging a claim against them based on Federal law.  They have every right to refuse to arbitrate as there is no basis to do so. 

The JDB has absolutely no reason to respond to you.  I stand by my original assessment.  You are chasing a phantom.  As soon as you file they will evaporate and disappear. You cannot just state they used an autodialer in your case.  You have to PROVE it.  The burden is entirely on you. Even if by some miracle you actually got to a verdict point they will go out of business.  You are not going to collect some enormous check for this.  Especially considering the majority of your claims are time barred.  Let it go.
3
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by CleaningUp on Today at 04:51:21 AM »
Who is the JBD???

4
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by etterboce on Today at 02:44:33 AM »
"When the account dropped off my credit, I was glad to see it go. Except very shortly after that, the JDB started using a different and very aggressive CA. The CA started by calling my wife’s phone (she was never on the original account; in fact, I didn’t even know her in 2010). The calls were persistent, and they would typically leave prerecorded messages saying that a lawsuit was imminent, and that this was my final opportunity before I would be turned over to the sheriff’s office. This was multiple times a day sometimes.
Then, my father told me that he had been receiving similar messages – both on his cell phone and at work (on the general voicemail for his office -- and he works with 12-15 other employees, all of whom have access to that voicemail). He also was never on the original account.

About two months after the calls to my wife began, I started receiving calls on my own cell phone. On one of them, I spoke with the CA (they had an auto-dialer leave me a message, so I called the number in the voicemail). The rep told me he was from "the legal department" and that they were about to turn me over to the Sheriff's office in a county I used to reside in. I told them to go ahead and sue me – and good luck, because the alleged debt was well past SOL in both FL and WA. The rep tried telling me the date of last payment was in 2014 – which is a lie. I asked for their contact info so I could send a C&D notice, and he refused. He also refused to provide his name or the name of his company. "


I hate to tell you this but this "collection" attempt is a scam and not related to the JDB or a legitimate CA at all.  The JDB will not be held responsible for a scammer phishing your information and trying to scam you for money.  The red flags are they were supposedly the legal department.  They are about to turn you over the the Sheriff and lawsuit is imminent.  Refusing to tell you who they are or where they are.  Calling friends and family ad nauseum trying to scare them into paying or pressuring you to pay.  You cannot pursue a phantom in JAMS over this.  Even seasoned consumer attorneys won't pursue these scammers because they are virtually impossible to locate to serve and often are not even in the USA.

I got one of these attempts about a month ago.  They had just enough legitimate information about a REALLY old defaulted card from the recession that a naive consumer might have got scared and paid.  I didn't fall for it and as soon as they realized I would not went away.


Thanks for your reply, Clydesmom66. Maybe you're right and this is a scam. When I spoke to the manager, he did provide me with a name and address for a collections agency based out of Buffalo, NY. I verified that the business name is a registered LLC in the State of NY (they registered in April 2017). The phone number I called them at is also registered to that CA. Unless he was flat out lying to me about who they were, they aren't really a phantom -- I know who they are and can serve them. Whether this CA is really collecting on behalf of the JDB is the question, right?

"After the debt was sold to JDB, they re-aged the account on my credit bureau files making it appear as if the collection originated in 2014 – and continued reporting it this way until it aged off in 2017. To their credit, the JDB wasn't too difficult about removing the tradelines after the actual date of last payment was over 7 years."

Not a violation.  The first date it did become a collection with them was in 2014.  They cannot report for the time prior to their acquiring it.  It is not re-aging to report it that way though many consumers mistakenly believe so.  The fact it fell off on time is proof that they did not re-age the debt.  You also have the problem that you cannot use your credit reports as evidence as they are hearsay in court.


Thanks for the advice on this.

"And regardless, is the JDB responsible for the behavior of their CA?"

In this case:  no.  You are chasing a scammer and unless you have proof the JDB did actually hire a CA you cannot identify or locate since they would not tell you that information how are you going to serve them?  I hope you are not assuming it is the last CA from several years ago.

Perhaps you misread -- when I spoke with the manager at the CA, they provided me their contact info -- Business name, address, telephone number, etc. That is how I can serve them.

My opinion:  you are wasting your time.  First if they stopped reporting in 2014 you have no FCRA violation.  Second:  even though the account is out of SOL for both suing and reporting if it were a legitimate collection attempt it is not defamation of character because you do owe the money even if they cannot sue or report it.  Third:  FDCPA violations only have a one year SOL and that expired for the last CA who did honor the cease and desist as you never heard from them again.  Fourth:  you cannot pursue claims of TCPA or FDCPA on behalf of family members.  You lack standing on counts 3, 4 and 5.  On count 6 if the reporting date was when the JDB acquired the account it isn't inaccurate and even so the SOL for pursuing that has also expired.  Also:  FDCPA violations do not stack up.  This would all be lumped into one claim since it revolves around one account and would equate to one $1000 fee maximum not the grossly inflated amounts you are claiming.

Last:  you cannot force the JDB or CA into JAMS on this.  They are free to ignore you and I predict they will.  Let it go.  You are wasting your time.

I appreciate your advice on this. I may indeed be wasting my time here -- that's why I sought out the advice of this forum.

They stopped reporting in 2017 -- not 2014. 2014 is when the JDB acquired the debt from the OC. But I understand your point here, as you explained that above.

As far as the TCPA portion of the claim is concerned, I technically own both my wife's phone and her phone line (she isn't on the phone account at all). So aren't they technically calling my phone in that case? Can't I also just add my wife's name onto the lawsuit? I know that she wouldn't mind.

I also thought it would hold more weight being that it was someone else's phone they are dialing. Isn't a big portion of the TCPA about privacy? Maybe I need to go back and re-educate myself on the law a bit -- but I was under the impression that it was a violation for a debt collector to leave messages discussing a consumer's finances with others (e.g. they can't tell everyone you know that you owe a debt). That's also why I figured that the CA leaving messages at my father's office was a very clear violation.

Do you think there is any worth in submitting this claim to JAMS, the JDB and CA? If the JDB doesn't respond, then clearly this is a scam. Otherwise, wouldn't they write me a letter stating that my claims hold no merit since they never hired the CA?


5
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by CleaningUp on Today at 02:38:52 AM »
1.  Do you have copies of the letters that withdrew permission to call?  Do you have the green cards to prove that they received the letters?  Did you even find out where they were calling from?

2.  What evidence to you have that they called you using an auto-dialer.  Please be specific.

3, 4, and 5.  Do you live in a community property state?  Did your spouse answer any of the calls?  What evidence do you have that they used an auto-dialer to contact her?  What law states that they cannot contact a third party for contact information?  What law states they cannot call a cell phone to obtain contact information.  What law says they cannot contact a third party at his/her place of work?  Do you have recordings of their disclosure to a third party?  Will your "witnesses" testify or submit affidavits?  (Note: Calls to spouses in most jurisdictions don't violate the FDCPA or state consumer protection laws.)

6.  How were the CR reports inaccurate?  (Note: A collector "opens" an account when he receives it for collections.  Putting the "date open" entry on the CR is not inaccurate reporting.  Did you dispute to the CRAs about the entry?  Was it verified?

7.  You sent a DV, did they answer it?  Remember that the threshold for proper validation can be as little as a "yes, you owe it" letter.  The standard is pathetically low.  In phone calls, if they are talking to you, the "debt collector" message must be given.  If they are talking to someone else, then it isn't.

8.  What evidence do you have that they discussed the debt with others, remembering that discussing the matter with a spouse is not likely to be illegal?  How are you going to overcome the statutory limit on FDCPA damages at $1,000 per action?  (Note:  FCRA damages become unavailable when the CRA corrects any inaccuracy.  The FDCPA is a strict-liability statute; the FCRA is not).

Before you start initiating an action where you are going to prove-up a case, it is wise to make a realistic assessment as to that which you can ACTUALLY prove-up, and request damage commensurate with what the law and custom can allow.

Oh, and BTW...the statute of limitations has expired.  Why didn't you issue a full cease-and-desist demand?  That would have ended the matter right there, and had they continued to hound you for it, you would have had a much more iron-clad case to present.

Don't let the quest for free money cloud your judgment.  Unfortunately, I think there are some storm clouds that you should be considering before you proceed.  Who knows, you could be stuck with their attorney fees if you aren't careful.

Anyway, with a legal case as "solid" as you think you have, a much friendlier place for you to be would be in court where the judge MUST follow the law, as opposed to being in arbitration where the arbiter can be...well...er...arbitrary in his rulings.




Even in arbitration, the onus is on the complainant to offer evidence to support his case. 
6
Arbitration / Re: Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by Clydesmom66 on Today at 02:17:38 AM »
"When the account dropped off my credit, I was glad to see it go. Except very shortly after that, the JDB started using a different and very aggressive CA. The CA started by calling my wife’s phone (she was never on the original account; in fact, I didn’t even know her in 2010). The calls were persistent, and they would typically leave prerecorded messages saying that a lawsuit was imminent, and that this was my final opportunity before I would be turned over to the sheriff’s office. This was multiple times a day sometimes.
Then, my father told me that he had been receiving similar messages – both on his cell phone and at work (on the general voicemail for his office -- and he works with 12-15 other employees, all of whom have access to that voicemail). He also was never on the original account.

About two months after the calls to my wife began, I started receiving calls on my own cell phone. On one of them, I spoke with the CA (they had an auto-dialer leave me a message, so I called the number in the voicemail). The rep told me he was from "the legal department" and that they were about to turn me over to the Sheriff's office in a county I used to reside in. I told them to go ahead and sue me – and good luck, because the alleged debt was well past SOL in both FL and WA. The rep tried telling me the date of last payment was in 2014 – which is a lie. I asked for their contact info so I could send a C&D notice, and he refused. He also refused to provide his name or the name of his company. "


I hate to tell you this but this "collection" attempt is a scam and not related to the JDB or a legitimate CA at all.  The JDB will not be held responsible for a scammer phishing your information and trying to scam you for money.  The red flags are they were supposedly the legal department.  They are about to turn you over the the Sheriff and lawsuit is imminent.  Refusing to tell you who they are or where they are.  Calling friends and family ad nauseum trying to scare them into paying or pressuring you to pay.  You cannot pursue a phantom in JAMS over this.  Even seasoned consumer attorneys won't pursue these scammers because they are virtually impossible to locate to serve and often are not even in the USA.

I got one of these attempts about a month ago.  They had just enough legitimate information about a REALLY old defaulted card from the recession that a naive consumer might have got scared and paid.  I didn't fall for it and as soon as they realized I would not went away.

"After the debt was sold to JDB, they re-aged the account on my credit bureau files making it appear as if the collection originated in 2014 – and continued reporting it this way until it aged off in 2017. To their credit, the JDB wasn't too difficult about removing the tradelines after the actual date of last payment was over 7 years."

Not a violation.  The first date it did become a collection with them was in 2014.  They cannot report for the time prior to their acquiring it.  It is not re-aging to report it that way though many consumers mistakenly believe so.  The fact it fell off on time is proof that they did not re-age the debt.  You also have the problem that you cannot use your credit reports as evidence as they are hearsay in court.

"One question I have about my claim surrounds this issue – is the CA supposed to uphold a C&D that was submitted to the JDB? "

No.  Each cease and desist is for the entity it is sent to.  You would have to send a new cease and desist to each subsequent collector.

"And regardless, is the JDB responsible for the behavior of their CA?"

In this case:  no.  You are chasing a scammer and unless you have proof the JDB did actually hire a CA you cannot identify or locate since they would not tell you that information how are you going to serve them?  I hope you are not assuming it is the last CA from several years ago.

"I never once received a dunning letter from this CA – and they continued the calls to my wife, to father, to my father’s office, and to me even after sending the DV + C&D via CMRRR. A similar letter was also sent to the JDB. Neither JDB or CA responded to my letters, and it’s been about  6 weeks since they were delivered. A couple weeks later, I also sent a demand to both CA and JDB to initiate JAMS."

The JDB and the old CA ignored your letter because they didn't hire someone to scam you. 

My opinion:  you are wasting your time.  First if they stopped reporting in 2014 you have no FCRA violation.  Second:  even though the account is out of SOL for both suing and reporting if it were a legitimate collection attempt it is not defamation of character because you do owe the money even if they cannot sue or report it.  Third:  FDCPA violations only have a one year SOL and that expired for the last CA who did honor the cease and desist as you never heard from them again.  Fourth:  you cannot pursue claims of TCPA or FDCPA on behalf of family members.  You lack standing on counts 3, 4 and 5.  On count 6 if the reporting date was when the JDB acquired the account it isn't inaccurate and even so the SOL for pursuing that has also expired.  Also:  FDCPA violations do not stack up.  This would all be lumped into one claim since it revolves around one account and would equate to one $1000 fee maximum not the grossly inflated amounts you are claiming.

Last:  you cannot force the JDB or CA into JAMS on this.  They are free to ignore you and I predict they will.  Let it go.  You are wasting your time.






7
Arbitration / Filing JAMS Soon -- Looking for Input
« Last post by etterboce on Today at 12:12:16 AM »
I am looking for some guidance on a JAMS claim I’m about to file against a JDB and CA. Any help would be greatly appreciated. This isn’t my first time filing in arbitration – it’s been a couple years – but I really want to validate that what I’m claiming isn’t completely off-base and that there aren’t major issues that I’m not seeing. I know this is really lengthy, but please bear with me. Here’s some background info:

Alleged Debt: Roughly $8,000
Original Creditor: Citi
Date of Last Payment: May 2010
State of Residence: WA since 2016; FL from 2000-2016

Alleged debt was sold from Citi to JDB in 2014; I have a letter from them stating this. I also have a copy of the cardholder agreement that includes the JAMS provision.

After the debt was sold to JDB, they re-aged the account on my credit bureau files making it appear as if the collection originated in 2014 – and continued reporting it this way until it aged off in 2017. To their credit, the JDB wasn't too difficult about removing the tradelines after the actual date of last payment was over 7 years.

JDB sent a dunning letter back in 2014 shortly after they acquired the account, which I still have a copy of. I sent them a DV and C&D via CMRRR, which they acknowledged. Their response included one page of a Citi statement from Feb 2011 – showing that no recent payments had been made.

The account went from CA to CA, all of whom I sent C&Ds to. One in particular got pretty bad in 2016, so I sent a reminder of the C&D and threatened JAMS back in Oct 2016. They acknowledged the C&D at the time, and I have a copy of that letter and the return receipt from the post office. I never heard from that CA again.

When the account dropped off my credit, I was glad to see it go. Except very shortly after that, the JDB started using a different and very aggressive CA. The CA started by calling my wife’s phone (she was never on the original account; in fact, I didn’t even know her in 2010). The calls were persistent, and they would typically leave prerecorded messages saying that a lawsuit was imminent, and that this was my final opportunity before I would be turned over to the sheriff’s office. This was multiple times a day sometimes.
Then, my father told me that he had been receiving similar messages – both on his cell phone and at work (on the general voicemail for his office -- and he works with 12-15 other employees, all of whom have access to that voicemail). He also was never on the original account.

About two months after the calls to my wife began, I started receiving calls on my own cell phone. On one of them, I spoke with the CA (they had an auto-dialer leave me a message, so I called the number in the voicemail). The rep told me he was from "the legal department" and that they were about to turn me over to the Sheriff's office in a county I used to reside in. I told them to go ahead and sue me – and good luck, because the alleged debt was well past SOL in both FL and WA. The rep tried telling me the date of last payment was in 2014 – which is a lie. I asked for their contact info so I could send a C&D notice, and he refused. He also refused to provide his name or the name of his company.

He hung up on me, so I called back and asked for a manager, who admitted that the debt was past SOL but said I had a moral obligation to pay it. Of course, I declined to pay anything, and asked for their contact info – which he did provide. He also told me that the same JDB still owned the account, and provided their contact info.

I never once received a dunning letter from this CA – and they continued the calls to my wife, to father, to my father’s office, and to me even after sending the DV + C&D via CMRRR. A similar letter was also sent to the JDB. Neither JDB or CA responded to my letters, and it’s been about  6 weeks since they were delivered. A couple weeks later, I also sent a demand to both CA and JDB to initiate JAMS.
I have the CA on 32 calls to my phone, 19 calls leaving threatening voicemails. I also have them on 9 calls and 7 voice messages on my wife’s phone; 8 calls to my father’s cell phone, and 6 calls to his office. [Please note – these are the calls I can prove on my phone bill or where I have retained recordings of the voicemails – the number of calls was actually a lot greater]

One question I have about my claim surrounds this issue – is the CA supposed to uphold a C&D that was submitted to the JDB? And regardless, is the JDB responsible for the behavior of their CA? That’s an argument I made in a previous claim (that the JDB was responsible for the CA’s violations) – in that previous claim, I only sued the JDB – not the CA. During that arbitration hearing, the arbitrator agreed with me on this theory -- that since the CA is the JDB's agent, the JDB (owner of the debt) was responsible for the behavior of the CA. In this claim, I’ve included both the CA & JDB – is that appropriate? Or should I just go after the JDB?

Here is the statement of claim I’ve already written. I feel like I’m asking for a lot, but I figured it was better to try to include everything possible rather than miss anything.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please find the addendums to the demand for arbitration detailing the dispute between claimant [removed] and respondents JDB and CA.
 
Addendum 1: Nature of Dispute:

Claimant hereby demands that you submit the following dispute to final and binding arbitration:

•   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
•   Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
•   Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
•   Defamation of Character

Background:

This dispute stems from a debt alleged by JDB (Respondent 1). JDB submitted a dunning letter to claimant dated December 2, 2014, stating that it had purchased an alleged debt in claimant’s name. Claimant received the dunning letter on December 5, 2014 and responded with a debt validation request, as permitted by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692). Claimant’s response also included a cease and desist notice, specifically stating that all telephone communications were inconvenient. This response was submitted to JDB on December 8, 2014.

JDB provided validation, which showed a date of last payment on the account of May 25, 2010. However, JDB reported to the credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) that the date of last payment was in 2014 – on a monthly basis from December 2014-December 2017.

Claimant reported this inaccuracy to JDB and the credit bureaus, but JDB would not correct the error. This made the alleged debt appear more recent than JDB had claimed, causing further damage to the claimant by producing longer-term harm to the claimant’s credit rating. The credit bureau’s algorithms cause more severe impact to consumer credit scoring when derogatory marks are more recent, therefore, reporting a more recent date of last payment artificially caused much longer-term damage to the claimant’s credit rating.

In 2016, the alleged debt was assigned to a collection agency, CA1. After repeated telephone calls by CA1 (respondent 1’s agent) between April-October 2016, claimant submitted another debt validation request and cease and desist notice to both CA1 and JDB on October 18, 2016. JDB acknowledged receipt of this communication October 26, 2016. Validation was received, yet it showed an amount due as of February 2011 – without a date of last payment listed – contradicting respondent 1’s repeated claims to the credit bureaus that the date of last payment was in 2014.

In May 2017, claimant started receiving repeated calls on his cellular phone from an auto-dialer from CA2 (respondent 2). Those calls left many pre-recorded voice messages stating that this was the “legal department” and that this was his “final chance to resolve this matter.” Some voice messages said that the Sheriff from XXXX County (claimant’s previous county of residence) was standing by and ready to serve him. These calls and voice messages continued on a regular basis – sometimes as early as 6:48 a.m. local time – until December 15, 2017.

In July 2017, claimant learned that his spouse, [redacted], was receiving similar calls and voicemails from CA2 regarding this alleged debt that threatened legal or criminal action towards the claimant.

In October 2017, claimant learned that his father, [redacted], had also received calls and voice messages from CA2 (respondent 2) on the general voicemailbox for his office at [redacted] regarding this alleged debt that threatened legal or criminal action towards the claimant. [Claimant’s father] also revealed that he had received similar calls and voice messages on his personal cellular phone from CA2 about the claimant.

In November 2017, claimant contacted CA2 by telephone. CA2’s agent failed to identify himself as a debt collector – simply identifying himself as a paralegal who was arranging legal action against the claimant on behalf of JDB. Claimant never received a dunning letter informing him of CA’s assignment to this alleged debt. Claimant reminded CA’s agent of the previous cease and desist notice, and requested not to be contacted again by CA.

The calls from CA2 continued – not only to the claimant, but to his spouse and father.  


Addendum 2: Claim & Relief Sought by Claimant:

Claimant assets the following claim and seeks the following relief:

1)   The respondents or their agents knowingly and willingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) no fewer than thirty-two times by contacting the claimant’s cellular phone using an auto-dialer after repeated requests in writing no to do so. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act provides for actual damages or $500 per violation, whichever is greater – but for triple damages ($1,500 per violation) in cases of willful violations. Claimant seeks $48,000 in damages for these violations.

2)   The respondents or their agents knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) no fewer than three times, by contacting the claimant’s cellular phone using an auto-dialer outside of the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. local time. Claimant seeks $1,500 in damages for these violations.

3)   The respondent or their agents willingly violated the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) no fewer than nine times by contacting [redacted] (claimant’s spouse) cellular phone using an auto-dialer. Respondent or their agents also left seven voice messages threatening legal action towards claimant on [redacted – claimant’s spouse] cellular phone. Claimant seeks $13,500 in damages for these violations.

4)   The respondent or their agents willingly violated the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) no fewer than eight times by contacting the claimant’s father, [redacted], on his cellular phone using an auto-dialer. Respondents or their agents also left six voice messages threatening legal action towards claimant on [claimant’s father’s] cellular phone. Claimant seeks $12,000 in damages for these violations.

5)   The respondent or their agents willingly violated the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. § 227) no fewer than seven calls to [redacted], [claimant’s father’s] place of employment, and left six voice messages on the office’s general voicemailbox threatening legal action against the claimant. Claimant seeks $10,500 in damages for these violations.

6)   Respondent JDB violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681) by providing inaccurate information to the claimant’s credit bureau files (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion). Respondent continued to report inaccurate information to the credit bureaus for a period of forty-two months, even after claimant repeatedly identified this inaccuracy to the respondent. The Fair Credit Reporting Act provides for $1,000 in statutory damages per violation. Claimant seeks $3,000 in damages for these violations.

7)   Respondent CA, LLC knowingly and willingly violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) by continued collection efforts without service of a dunning letter or proper debt validation. Respondent also failed to identify themselves as a debt collector on at least three occasions. This statute provides for $1,000 in damages per violation. Claimant seeks $5,000 for these violations.

8)   Respondent CA, LLC knowingly and willingly violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) by harassing claimant by contacting his relatives and strangers without permission to do so, including people whose contact information was never provided by the claimant to the respondent. Respondent or their agents knowingly and willingly defamed the claimant by discussed claimant’s personal finances and fabricated a risk of pending legal action towards the claimant– causing great embarrassment, invasion of privacy, and irreparable damage to claimant’s reputation. Claimant seeks $19,000 for damages to his character and for 19 violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – as each voice message left at the offices of [claimant’s father’s employer] (6), on [claimant’s wife’s] cellular phone (7), and on [claimant’s father’s] cellular phone (6), are individual violations of the above referenced statute.


8
https://www.discover.com/credit-cards/help-center/faqs/extended-product-warranty.html

Quote
For purchases made after August 1st, 2016, coverage applies if the eligible purchase was made with one of the following payment methods, either the entire purchase was made on the Discover card (and/or accrued Cashback Bonus or Miles), or the purchase was made on the Discover card along with either cash, store-issued gift card or credit, or non-card network branded gift card. Coverage does not apply if any credit or debit card other than Discover card is used for any portion of the payment. For purchases made prior to August 1st, 2016, coverage applies only if the entire purchase was made on the Discover card (and/or accrued Cashback Bonus or Miles).

You need to find out the exact date you bought the TV. Hopefully it was after August 1st.
9
Lawsuit Fundamentals - the Laws / Re: Is this even possible?
« Last post by Flyingifr on Yesterday at 01:30:35 PM »
And don't get creative with answers.  The truth is a requirement as the one being examine does so under oath.

And, as has been said often here, what is said in truth today may not be the truth tomorrow.

Until there is a court injunction preventing you from taking actions, your assets are yours to do with as you please.

Exactly - make sure that the answer is truthful, but take your time in getting there, using as many mental detours as you can find.
10
Discover discontinued this benefit already but it should still be in effect for you. Some credit cards requires that the entire purchase is made with the card to qualify and some cards will only cover the amount paid with the card. Read the benefits guide terms at the time you made the purchase. I think Discover and American Express requires the entire amount paid with the card but you should double check.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10