`
`
`
`Youssef H. Hammoud (SBN: 321934)
`yh@lawhammoud.com
`HAMMOUD LAW, P.C.
`3744 E. Chapman Ave., #F12269
`Orange, CA 92859
`T: (949) 301-9692
`F: (949) 301-9693
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Aja Vasquez-Looper
`
`
`
`AJA VASQUEZ-LOOPER,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DESERT VALLEY HOSPITAL, LLC;
`RENAISSANCE IMAGING
`
`MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.;
`
`DESERT VALLEY MEDICAL
`
`GROUP, INC.; and JMD, LLC d/b/a
`
`HIGH DESERT CREDITORS
`
`SERVICE;
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-859
`
`
`
`1. RFDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code. § 1788
`et seq.
`2. FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff Aja Vasquez-Looper (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys,
`
`alleges the following against Defendants Desert Valley Hospital, LLC (“DVH”),
`
`Renaissance Imaging Medical Associates, Inc. (“RIMA”), Desert Valley Medical
`- 1 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`Group, Inc. (“DVMG”), and JMD, LLC d/b/a High Desert Creditors Service
`
`(“HDCS”).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Counts I & II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is based upon the Rosenthal
`
`1.
`
`Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq.,
`
`and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq.,
`
`which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair
`
`practices connection with the collection of consumer debts.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The District Court has federal question jurisdiction over these claims
`
`2.
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692.
`
`3.
`
`Supplemental jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`
`because the state law claims are so related to the claims in the action within such
`
`original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
`
`Article III of the US Constitution.
`
`4.
`
`Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
`
`in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`
`occurred in this district.
`
`5.
`
`Because Defendants conduct business within the County of San
`
`Bernardino, State of California personal jurisdiction is established.
`- 2 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff is a natural person residing in San Bernardino, California
`
`Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(g).
`
`Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
`
`Plaintiff, as a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a consumer
`
`debt to Defendants, alleged to have been due and owing, is a “debtor” as that term
`
`is defined by California Civil Code § 1788.2(h) of the Rosenthal Act.
`
`10. As a partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other
`
`similar entity, Defendants are a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §
`
`1788.2(g) of the Rosenthal Act, and within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §
`
`1785.3(j).
`
`11. Defendants allege Plaintiff owed it money arising out of medical
`
`services performed upon Plaintiff by Defendants DVH, RIMA, and DVMG for
`
`treatment of injuries arising out of an industrial work-place accident, without
`
`payment being required at the time of services being rendered, and Plaintiff is
`
`informed and believes the money alleged to have been owed to Defendants
`
`originated from monetary credit that was extended primarily for personal, family,
`
`or household purposes, and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by
`
`California Civil Code § 1788.2(d).
`
`- 3 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`12. Plaintiff allegedly owed a monetary debt to Defendants, which makes
`
`Defendants each a “creditor” under California Civil Code § 1788.2(i) of the
`
`Rosenthal Act.
`
`13. Upon information and belief, Defendants were attempting to collect
`
`on a debt that originated from monetary credit that was extended primarily for
`
`personal, family, or household purposes due to medical services performed upon
`
`Plaintiff to treat injuries arising out of a work-place accident without payment being
`
`required at the time of services and was therefore a “consumer credit transaction”
`
`within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1788.2(e) of the Rosenthal Act.
`
`14. Because Plaintiff, a natural person allegedly obligated to pay money
`
`to Defendants arising from what Plaintiff is informed and believes was a consumer
`
`credit transaction due to medical services performed upon Plaintiff to treat injuries
`
`arising out of a work-place accident without payment being required at the time of
`
`services, the money allegedly owed was a “consumer debt” within the meaning of
`
`California Civil Code § 1788.2(f) of the Rosenthal Act.
`
`15. Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants regularly collect or
`
`attempt to collect debts on behalf of themselves and is therefore both a “debt
`
`collector” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1788.2(c) of the Rosenthal
`
`Act, and thereby engages in “debt collection” within the meaning of California
`
`Civil Code § 1788.2(b) of the Rosenthal Act.
`- 4 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`16. At all relevant times herein, Defendant DVH was a company engaged,
`
`by use of mails and telephone in the business of collecting a debt from Plaintiff
`
`which qualifies as a “debt,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(d). Defendant
`
`DVH can be served through its agent for service of process, Cogency Global, Inc.,
`
`located at 1325 J Street, Ste 1550, Sacramento, CA 95814.
`
`17. At all relevant times herein, Defendant RIMA was a company
`
`engaged, by use of mails and telephone in the business of collecting a debt from
`
`Plaintiff which qualifies as a “debt,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(d).
`
`Defendant RIMA can be served through its agent for service of process, CSC –
`
`Lawyers Incorporating Service, located at 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr. Ste. 150N,
`
`Sacramento, CA 95833.
`
`18. At all relevant times herein, Defendant DVMG was a company
`
`engaged, by use of mails and telephone in the business of collecting a debt from
`
`Plaintiff which qualifies as a “debt,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(d).
`
`Defendant DVMG can be served through its agent for service of process, Cogency
`
`Global, Inc., located at 1325 J Street, Ste 1550, Sacramento, CA 95814.
`
`19. At all relevant times herein, Defendant HDCS was a company
`
`engaged, by use of mails and telephone in the business of collecting a debt from
`
`Plaintiff which qualifies as a “debt,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(d). In
`
`addition, Defendant is in the business of debt collection. Defendant therefore is a
`- 5 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`“debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Defendant HDCS can be
`
`served at its principal place of business located at 14608 Main Street, #B, Hesperia,
`
`CA 92345.
`
`20. Defendants acted through their agents, employees, officers, members,
`
`directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees,
`
`representatives, and insurers.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`A. Plaintiff’ Workplace Injury
`
`21. Defendants are attempting to collect an alleged debt from Mrs.
`
`Vasquez-Looper.
`
`22.
`
`In or around October 2021, Mrs. Vasquez-Looper received medical
`
`services from Defendants DVH, RIMA and DVMG, for treatment arising from the
`
`injuries that are the subject of Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim, of which
`
`Defendants and their entire staff knew about and were aware all billings for services
`
`should be handled pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act.
`
`23. During Plaintiff’s visit(s) with Defendants, she informed Defendants
`
`that her injuries were the result of her work-place accident and provided all
`
`information necessary to bill the proper party.
`
`- 6 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`24. Nevertheless, Defendants began attempting to collect from Plaintiff
`
`directly and sent Plaintiff bills for collection for medical services she was not
`
`legally responsible for.
`
`25. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, which prohibits unlawful debt collection
`
`activity, is a strict liability statute.
`
`26.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1692, which prohibits unlawful debt collection activity, is
`
`a strict liability statute.
`
`B. Defendants’ Collection Activity
`
`i.
`
`Defendant DVH’s Unlawful Collection Activity
`
`27.
`
`In or around October 2021, Plaintiff received a medical statement
`
`from Defendant DVH indicating that Plaintiff had an outstanding balance and
`
`requested payment of the medical services provided for the treatment of injuries
`
`that are the subject of his worker’s compensation claim.
`
`28. The letter was attempting to collect an amount of $3,118.60, of which
`
`Plaintiff is not responsible for.
`
`29. The letter was attempting to collect an amount that was not permitted
`
`by law because Plaintiff was not responsible for any and all medical bills received
`
`that were related to her workplace injury.
`
`- 7 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`30. On one or more occasion, either by phone or in person, Plaintiff
`
`directly informed Defendant DVH that the medical services rendered were related
`
`to her workers compensation claim.
`
`31. Furthermore, Plaintiff provided all necessary
`
`information
`
`to
`
`Defendant DVH to properly bill the medical services it rendered that was related
`
`to Plaintiff’s workplace injury.
`
`ii.
`
`Defendants DVMG and HDCS Unlawful Collection Activity
`
`32.
`
`In or around October 2021, Plaintiff received medical statements from
`
`Defendant UHS for payment of medical services provided for the treatment of
`
`injuries that are the subject of his worker’s compensation claim.
`
`33. The letters were attempting to collect an amount of $347.93, of which
`
`Plaintiff is not responsible for.
`
`34.
`
`In or around January 2022, Plaintiff received a collection letter from
`
`Defendant HDCS for payment of medical services provided for the treatment of
`
`injuries that are the subject of her worker’s compensation claim.
`
`35. The letter was attempting to collect an amount of $347.93, of which
`
`Plaintiff is not responsible for.
`
`36. The letter was attempting to collect an amount that was not permitted
`
`by law because Plaintiff was not responsible for any and all medical bills received
`
`that were related to her workplace injury.
`- 8 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`37. Upon information and belief, Defendant HDCS placed debt collection
`
`calls to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect on the alleged debt.
`
`38. Upon information and belief, Defendant HDCS lacks any policies and
`
`procedures to avoid collection on medical bills that are subject to a workers
`
`compensation claim.
`
`iii. RIMA Unlawful Collection Activity
`
`39.
`
`In or around October 2021, Plaintiff received medical statements from
`
`Defendant RIMA for payment of medical services provided for the treatment of
`
`injuries that are the subject of her worker’s compensation claim.
`
`40. The letter was attempting to collect an amount of $50.00, of which
`
`Plaintiff is not responsible for.
`
`41. The letter was attempting to collect an amount that was not permitted
`
`by law because Plaintiff was not responsible for any and all medical bills received
`
`that were related to her workplace injury.
`
`42.
`
`In or around November 2021, Plaintiff received another medical
`
`statement from Defendant RIMA for payment of medical services provided for the
`
`treatment of injuries that are the subject of her worker’s compensation claim.
`
`43. The letter was attempting to collect an amount of $50.00, of which
`
`Plaintiff is not responsible for.
`
`iv. Defendant HDCS unlawful disclosure of information
`- 9 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:10
`
`44. At an exact time known only to Defendant HDCS, the alleged debt owed to
`
`DVMG was assigned or otherwise transferred to HDCS for collection.
`
`45. In its efforts to collect on the alleged debt owed to DVMG, Defendant HDCS
`
`decided to contact Plaintiff by written correspondence.
`
`46. Rather than preparing and mailing such written correspondence to Plaintiff
`
`on its own, Defendant HDCS decided to utilize a third-party vendor to
`
`perform such activities on its behalf.
`
`47. As part of its utilization of the third-party vendor, Defendant conveyed
`
`information regarding the alleged DVMG debt to the third-party vendor by
`
`electronic means.
`
`48. The information conveyed by Defendant HDCS to the third-party vendor
`
`included Plaintiff’s status as a debtor, the precise amount of the alleged
`
`DHMG debt, the account number, the entity to which Plaintiff allegedly
`
`owed the debt, the fact that the alleged debt concerned Plaintiff’s medical
`
`treatment, Plaintiff’s home address, and other information.
`
`49. In fact, Defendant HDCS conveyed it was a debt collector and attempting to
`
`collect a debt from Plaintiff.
`
`50. Defendant HDCS’ conveyance of the information regarding the alleged debt
`
`owed to DVMG to the third-party vendor is a “communication” as that term
`
`is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2).
`- 10 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:11
`
`51. The third-party vendor then populated some or all this information into a
`
`prewritten template, printed, and mailed the correspondence to Plaintiff at
`
`Defendant HDCS’ direction.
`
`52. A correspondence, sent in or around January 2022, was received and read
`
`by Plaintiff. (the “HDCS letter”).
`
`53. The HDCS Letter, which conveyed information about the alleged debt owed
`
`to DVMG, is a “communication” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1692a(2).
`
`54. The FDCPA prohibits the sharing of information regarding a consumer
`
`“without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt
`
`collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or
`
`as reasonably necessary to effectuate a post judgment judicial remedy…”
`
`See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).
`
`55. In the relevant part, Section 1692c(b) states, “a debt collector may not
`
`communicate in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person
`
`other than the consumer, her attorney, a consumer reporting agency if
`
`otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the
`
`attorney of the debt collector.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).
`
`56. The sharing, transferring, or communicating of Plaintiff’s information is
`
`prohibited by law.
`
`- 11 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`57. Plaintiff did not provide her prior consent to the sharing of her information
`
`with the third-party letter vendor Defendant HDCS utilized.
`
`58. Defendant HDCS’ intentional or negligent conduct of sharing, transferring,
`
`or communicating of Plaintiff’s personal and sensitive information without
`
`Plaintiff’s prior consent, caused an invasion into Plaintiff’s individual
`
`privacy, which caused Plaintiff concern, embarrassment, anxiety, worry,
`
`sleeplessness, and emotional distress causing Plaintiff to spend time to retain
`
`counsel, causing her loss of time.
`
`59. All of Defendants unlawful collection efforts regarding alleged debt arising
`
`from medical services rendered related to a workers compensation claim
`
`caused Plaintiff to suffer from emotional distress and mental pain and
`
`anguish, including but not limited to, stress, anxiety
`
`COUNT I
`All Defendants
` (Violations of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1788 et seq.)
`60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`
`61. Defendants violated the RFDCPA. Defendants’ violations include, but
`
`are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Defendants violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 by collecting or
`
`attempting to collect a consumer debt without complying with the
`- 12 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:13
`
`provisions of Sections 1692b to 1692j, inclusive, of . . . Title 15 of
`
`the United States Code (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).
`
`a. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, by engaging in
`
`conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass,
`
`oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection
`
`a debt.
`
`b. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using false,
`
`deceptive, or misleading representations or means
`
`in
`
`connection with the collection of any debt.
`
`c. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely
`
`representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
`
`d. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), by using false
`
`representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to
`
`collect any debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.
`
`e. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by using unfair or
`
`unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
`
`f. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to
`
`collect any amount (including any interest, fee, charge or
`
`expense incidental to the principal obligation) that is not
`
`permitted by law.
`
`- 13 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`62. Defendants’ acts, as described above, were done intentionally with the
`
`purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt.
`
`63. As a result of the foregoing violations of the RFDCPA, Defendants
`
`are liable to Plaintiff for actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees
`
`and costs.
`
`COUNT II
`Defendants HDCS
`(Violations of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)
`64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
`
`Complaint as though fully stated herein.
`
`65. Defendant violated the FDCPA. Defendant’s violations include, but
`
`are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, by engaging in conduct
`
`the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or
`
`abuse any person in connection with the collection a debt.
`
`b. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e by using false,
`
`deceptive, or misleading representations or means
`
`in
`
`connection with the collection of any debt.
`
`c. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely
`
`representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
`
`- 14 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`d. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), by using false
`
`representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to
`
`collect any debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.
`
`e. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, by using unfair or
`
`unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
`
`f. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to
`
`collect any amount (including any interest, fee, charge or
`
`expense incidental to the principal obligation) that is not
`
`permitted by law.
`
`66. Defendant’s acts, as described above, were done intentionally with the
`
`purpose of coercing Plaintiff to pay the alleged debt.
`
`67. As a result of the foregoing violations of the FDCPA, HDCS is liable
`
`to Plaintiff for actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`PRAYER OF RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aja Vasquez-Looper, respectfully requests
`
`judgment be entered against Defendants for the following:
`
`A. Declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the RFDCPA;
`
`B. Declaratory judgment that Defendant HDCS violated the FDCPA;
`
`- 15 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:16
`
`C. Statutory damages against Defendants of $1,000.00 pursuant to the
`
`RFDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30(b);
`
`D. Actual damages against Defendants pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
`
`§1788.30(a);
`
`E. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants pursuant to
`
`the RFDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code §1788.30(c);
`
`F. Actual damages against Defendant HDCS pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1692k(a)(1);
`
`G. Statutory damages against Defendants HDCS of $1,000.00 pursuant
`
`to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);
`
`H. Attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant HDCS pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3).
`
`I. Punitive damages pursuant to be determined at trial, for the sake of
`
`example and punishing Defendant for their malicious conduct,
`
`pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.
`
`J. Awarding Plaintiff any pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
`
`may be allowed under the law; and
`
`K. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Please take notice that Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.
`- 16 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-00859 Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:17
`
`Respectfully submitted this May 23, 2022.
`
`
`By: /s/ Youssef H. Hammoud
`
`
`Youssef H. Hammoud (SBN: 321934)
`HAMMOUD LAW, P.C.
`3744 E. Chapman Ave., #F12269
`Orange, CA 92859
`T: (949) 301-9692
`F: (949) 301-9693
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Aja Vasquez-Looper
`
`- 17 -
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`