Keller's Complaint for Court- Help!

CAUSE NO. _______________



KELLER, Plaintiff IN JUSTICEâ??S COURT

1234 Consumer Ave. JUSTICE PRECINCT NO. 3

Lone Star, Texas 78954 POSITION 1

vs. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INC., Defendant
REGISTERED AGENT: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TX 75201



PLAINTIFFâ??S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES- NOW the above styled Plaintiff complaining of the above styled Defendant and for
the cause of action would show the court as follows:
I.

THAT the Defendant may be served at the above stated address.

II.

THAT the Defendant is legally indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of $5,000.00 based upon
the following facts:


1. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ?) establishes federal jurisdiction for Plaintiffâ??s cause of action
pursuant to 15 U. S. C. §§1681 et seq. (See §618. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions [15 U. S. C.
§ 1681p]

(A) Defendant, Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. (â??RMAâ?) failed in their duty to correct and update
incorrect information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (â??FCRAâ?) 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2 (b).
Under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n (a) Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed
under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer. And further, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§1681o, any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with
respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer.

On or about June 24, 2001, Plaintiff requested a copy of his consumer reports from all three major credit
reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union). Upon receipt, Plaintiff noticed an account he did
not recognize being reported under the tradeline, RMAPP PUR-PAP-AM. The tradeline showed a
collection account date opened 4/96 and date of last activity 5/96. Also noted under tradeline, â??Customer
Unable to Locate Consumerâ? with a date last reported 8/99. Plaintiff had to research to obtain correct
phone number for Defendant before contacting them by telephone on August 8, 2001 to obtain validation
on this account pursuant to [15 U.S.C 1692g] of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (â??FDCPAâ?),
because Plaintiff did not have any recollection of doing business with Defendant. Defendant refused to
validate tradeline. Defendant proceeded to obtain a copy of Plaintiffâ??s personal credit report on August 8,
2001 and again on March 28, 2002 in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (â??FDCPAâ?) §807
False or misleading representations [15 U.S.C. 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, ormisleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting general
application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (see FTC opinion letter to
Robert G. Cass)
(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated
with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of - -

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to
obtain information concerning a consumer.
Defendant, Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. (â??RMAâ?) has represented an outdated sum of money owed
as a legally owed debt and has misrepresented the legal status of this alleged debt. (Exhibit â??Aâ?)
**Plaintiff is seeking $1,000 per above violations for a total of $2,000 for these violations.
Defendant, RMA, also violated the FCRA by procuring Plaintiffâ??s consumer report under false pretenses.
FCRA, [15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.] §1681n, Provides a civil cause of action against any consumer reporting
agency or user of information which willfully fails to comply with any requirement under this title. As a
general rule, a person proceeds under false pretenses when he
(1) knowingly and willfully obtains a consumer report for a purpose that is not sanctioned by the FCRA
and (2) fails to disclose his true motivation to the consumer reporting agency.
FCRA, [15 U.S.C. §1681q] §619. Obtaining information under false pretenses
Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting
agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than
2 years, or both.
This alleged debt was no longer legally collectible and therefore, the Plaintiff would have had no
relationship with Defendant on August 8, 2001 and on March 28, 2002. Defendant illegally obtained
Plaintiffâ??s consumer report on August 08, 2001 and again on March 28, 2002.

 

2. On or about September 17, 2001, Plaintiff disputed account through credit reporting agency, Equifax.
Defendant, Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. verified the account as accurate and complete. On or
about January 18, 2002, Plaintiff again disputed account through Equifax, a credit reporting agency, and
again, Risk Management Alternatives verified the account as accurate and complete. Reporting and
verifying an account with a credit reporting agency while not validating with consumer is a violation of the
Texas Debt Collection Act §392.202. Correction of Third-Party Debt Collectorâ??s or Credit Bureauâ??s Files
(a) An individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collectorâ??s or credit bureauâ??s
file on the individual may notify in writing the third-party debt collector or credit bureau of the inaccuracy.
The third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall provide forms for the notice and, when requested,
assist an individual in preparing the notice. (b) Not later than the 30th day after the date a notice of
inaccuracy is received, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall send a written statement to the
individual:
(1) denying the inaccuracy;
(2) admitting the inaccuracy; or
(3) stating that the third-party debt collector or credit bureau has not had sufficient time to complete an
investigation of the inaccuracy. (c) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau admits that the item is
inaccurate, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall:
(1) not later than the fifth business day after the date of the admission, correct the item in the relevant file;
and (2) immediately on correction of the item send to each person who has previously received a report
from the third-party debt collector or credit bureau containing the inaccurate information notice of the
inaccuracy and a copy of the accurate report. (d) If the third-party debt collector or credit bureau states
there has not been sufficient time to complete an investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit
bureau shall immediately: (1) change the item in the relevant file as requested by the individual; (3) cease
collection efforts if the item involves a debt. (e) On completion by the third-party debt collector or credit
bureau of the investigation, the third-party debt collector or credit bureau shall inform the individual of the
determination of whether the item is accurate or inaccurate.
3. On or about April 2, 2002, Plaintiff received first written correspondence from Risk Management
Alternatives, Inc., in the form of a collection letter for the sum of $5,690.87. The letter noted the interest
added to the balance in the amount of or $2,378.11. This is in direct violation of the Texas Debt Collection
Act §392.303 Unfair or Unconscionable Means (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use unfair
or unconscionable means that employ the following practices: (2) collecting or attempting to collect interest
or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the obligation unless the interest or incidental charge, fee, or
expense is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to the
consumer.

3. On or about March 28, 2002, Plaintiff called Defendant on the telephone, requesting information on the
account. Defendant would not cooperate nor agree to send any information on account. On same day,
Plaintiff called the Atlanta Attorney Generalâ??s Office in Atlanta, Georgia requesting assistance in this
matter. Atlanta Attorney General instructed me to forward a written complaint to their office and they
would investigate the matter. On or about May 1, 2002, I received written correspondence for Atlanta
Attorney Generalâ??s office and then again on or about May 4, 2002. (Exhibits â??Câ?, â??Dâ?, & â??Eâ?)

4. On or about April 8, 2002, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Defendant, Risk Management Alternatives, Inc.,
requesting evidence of a contractual obligation for Plaintiff to pay Defendant, RMA. (Exhibit â??Fâ?)

5. On or about May 6, 2002, faxed and then proceeded to mail second request for validation and/or
removal from Plaintiffâ??s credit report. (Exhibit â??Gâ?)

6. On or about May 09, 2002, Plaintiff received second collection letter from Defendant, Risk Management
Alternatives, Inc., absent validation.

CIVIL PENALTIES
7. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff has suffered denial of credit, humiliation, mental anguish, and
emotional distress.
8. Defendant has maliciously, willfully, repeatedly and knowingly violated Plaintiffâ??s rights afforded him
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Texas Fair Debt Collection Act, and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
9. The Plaintiff contends actual, punitive, and statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 for each of the
violations of the FCRA, the FDCPA, and the TDCA that the Defendant has committed, totaling $5,000 are
appropriate.
10. Plaintiff seeks the immediate and permanent correction and/or deletion of this disputed account as well
as a permanent injunction barring Defendant, Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. from reporting it
incorrectly to any other consumer reporting agency.
29. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages as each of the Defendantâ??s actions towards Plaintiff was
malicious and Defendant knowingly, willfully and repeatedly violated Plaintiffâ??s rights. Defendantâ??s
actions constitute a wanton and gross disregard for the law. Plaintiff requests punitive damages in the
amount of $2,500.



30. Plaintiff respectfully requests a Judgement of this Court awarding him economic, compensatory, and
punitive damages all as provided by law, attorneyâ??s fees if Plaintiff retains an attorney during the pendency
of this action, equitable relief, the costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further
relief as to the Court may be just and proper.



III.

THAT Plaintiff reserves the right to plead further orally upon trial of this matter.








WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that citation be served on
Defendant and upon hearing of this cause Plaintiff be awarded judgement against Defendant in the
above amount, court cost and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.

 

Thanks, I will try and re-do it in more of "layman's" terms. This was my first rough draft. I really needed to get this out so that I could "mentally" move forward and REALLY work on it.

Keller