Bennett et al v. IQ Data International, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed and summon(s) issued. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided, (Filing fee $350 receipt number 113E-3523936), filed by Torey Bennett, Megan Welch. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(vld) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
:
2:11-CV-0257-WCO
: Civil Action No.: ______
:
:
:
:
: COMPLAINT
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
:
:

Torey Bennett & Megan Welch,
Plaintiffs,
v.
IQ Data International, Inc.; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

For this Complaint, Plaintiffs, Torey Bennett & Megan Welch, by
undersigned counsel, state as follows:
JURISDICTION
1.

This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the
invasions of Plaintiffs’ personal privacy by the Defendants and its agents 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 Defendants transact business in this District and a substantial portion of the
acts giving rise to this action occurred in this District.

PARTIES
4.

Plaintiff, Torey Bennett (“Plaintiffs”), is an adult individual residing

in Gainesvillle, Georgia, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(3).
5.

Plaintiff, Megan Welch (“Plaintiffs”), is an adult individual residing

in Gainesvillle, Georgia, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(3).
6.

Defendant IQ Data International, Inc., is a Washington corporation

with an address of 1010 Southeast Everett Mall Way, Suite 100, Everett,
Washington 98208, operating as a collection agency, and is a “debt collector” as
the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
7.

Does 1-10 (the “Collectors”) are individual collectors employed by IQ

Data and whose identities are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs. One or more of
the Collectors may be joined as parties once their identities are disclosed through
discovery.
8.

IQ Data at all times acted by and through one or more of the

Collectors.

2

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
A. The Debt
9.

The Plaintiffs incurred a financial obligation (the “Debt”) to their

landlord (the “Creditor”).
10.

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).
11.

The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to IQ Data for

collection, or IQ Data was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt.
12.

The Defendants attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in

“communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).
B. IQ Data Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics
13.

Within the past year, IQ Data called Plaintiffs in an attempt to collect

the Debt.
14.

On or about June 20, 2011, Nicholas Rode, a representative for IQ

Data, contacted Plaintiffs by Plaintiff and stated that Plaintiffs owed $1,315.00.
Rode also stated that Plaintiffs had until the end of June of 2011 to dispute the
Debt.

3

15.

IQ Data threatened to file immediate lawsuit against Plaintiffs if the

Debt was not immediately paid. Based upon the threat of immediate litigation,
Plaintiffs felt coerced into entering into a payment arrangement with Defendant.
16.

On or around June 23, 2011, IQ Data sent a letter to both Plaintiffs

stating they owed $1,833.78.
17.

Thereafter, IQ Data sent a debt validation letter dated July 12, 2011,

addressed only to Plaintiff, Torey Bennett, with a new account number and a
different total amount of the Debt.
18.

Thereafter, IQ Data sent a third letter, dated July 13, 2011, addressed

only to Plaintiff, Megan Welch, with a third account number and a third different
amount of the Debt.
19.

The amounts stated in the three letters were different than the amount

demanded in the aforementioned telephone communication(s). This caused great
confusion and distress for Plaintiffs.
20.

Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of their rights under the state

and federal laws by written correspondence within 5 days after the initial
communication, including the right to dispute the Debt.

4

C. Plaintiffs Suffered Actual Damages
21.

The Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual damages as

a result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
22.

As a direct consequence of the Defendants’ acts, practices and

conduct, the Plaintiffs suffered and continue 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.
23.

The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of

this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
24.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d in that

Defendants engaged in behavior the natural consequence of which was to harass,
oppress, or abuse the Plaintiffs in connection with the collection of a debt.
25.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) in that

Defendants misrepresented the character, amount and legal status of the Debt.
26.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) in that

Defendants threatened to take legal action, without actually intending to do so.
27.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) in that

Defendants employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt.

5

28.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) in that

Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a validation notice stating the amount of the
Debt.
29.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) in that

Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a validation notice stating the name of the
original creditor to whom the Debt was owed.
30.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) in that

Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a validation notice stating the Plaintiffs’
right to dispute the Debt within thirty days.
31.

The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(4) in that

Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a validation notice informing the Plaintiffs
of a right to have verification and judgment mailed to the Plaintiffs.
32.

The Defendants failed to send the Plaintiffs a validation notice stating

the Plaintiffs’ right to request the name and address of the original creditor, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(5).
33.

The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute

numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the abovecited provisions.

6

34.

The Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’

violations.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT,
O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390, et seq.
35.

The Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of

this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
36.

The Plaintiffs are “consumers” as the term is defined by O.C.G.A.

§ 10-1-392(6).
37.

The Plaintiffs incurred a Debt as a result of engaging into “consumer

transactions” as the term is defined by O.C.G.A. § 10-1-392(10).
38.

The Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts to collect the Debt occurred

in commerce, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393(a).
39.

The Plaintiffs suffered mental anguish, emotional distress and other

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
40.

Defendant’s failure to comply with these provisions constitutes an

unfair or deceptive act under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393(a) and, as such, the Plaintiffs
are entitled to damages plus reasonable attorney’s fees.

7

COUNT III
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
41.

The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of

this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
42.

The Restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) defines intrusion upon

seclusion as, “One who intentionally intrudes…upon the solitude or seclusion of
another, or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for
invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.”
43.

Georgia further recognizes the Plaintiffs’ right to be free from

invasions of privacy, thus Defendant violated Georgia state law.
44.

The Defendant intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs’ right to privacy

by continually harassing the Plaintiffs with telephone calls.
45.

The conduct of the Defendant in engaging in the illegal collection

activities resulted in multiple invasions of privacy in such a way as would be
considered highly offensive to a reasonable person.
46.

As a result of the intrusions and invasions, the Plaintiffs are entitled to

actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendant.

8

47.

All acts of Defendant and its agents were committed with malice,

intent, wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, Defendant is subject to punitive
damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered against
Defendants:
1. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) and
O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(a) against Defendants;
2. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§1692k(a)(2)(A) against Defendants;
3. Treble damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(c) against
Defendants;
4. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(d) against
Defendants;
5. Actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including
emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless,
and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless,

9

and/or negligent invasions of privacy in an amount to be
determined at trial for the Plaintiffs;
6. Punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(a) against
Defendants; and
7. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS

Dated: September 21, 2011
By: /s/ Cara Hergenroether, Esq.
Attorney Bar No.: 570753
Attorney for Plaintiffs Torey Bennett &
Megan Welch
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
1400 Veterans Memorial Highway
Suite 134, #150
Mableton, GA 30126
Telephone: [phone] ext. 5516
Email: [e-mail]
Of Counsel To:
LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C.
1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10