`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
`
`The Cardoza Law Corporation
`Michael F. Cardoza, Esq. (SBN: 194065)
`Mike.Cardoza@cardozalawcorp.com
`Lauren B. Veggian, Esq. (SBN: 309929)
`Lauren.Veggian@cardozalawcorp.com
`548 Market St., #80594
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 488-8041
`Facsimile: (415) 651-9700
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`Leo Byrne and Minor Child D.B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`LEO BYRNE AND
` Case No.: 8:22-cv-00934
`MINOR CHILD D.B.,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`FOR VIOLATIONS OF:
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`1.) FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
` v.
`PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`§§ 1692 ET SEQ.; AND
`EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.,
`
`ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP,
`2.) ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT
`INC., AND
`COLLECTION PRACTICES
`NATIONAL RECOVERY
`ACT CAL CIV §§ 1788, ET
`AGENCY,
`SEQ.
`
`
`3.) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION
`OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`4.) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
`OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`5.) NEGLIGENCE
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
` Defendants.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. This is a case about two pharmacies and their collection agency who failed to
`properly bill the co-pay assist program for a local fireman and his disabled son.
`The patients properly provided their co-pay assist program information, it was
`acknowledged by the pharmacies on numerous occasions, yet the pharmacies sent
`the improperly billed co-pays to collections anyway, causing the fireman to
`forego and/or be denied medicine he and his disabled son both desperately
`needed.
`2. LEO BYRNE (“Plaintiff Byrne”) and MINOR CHILD D.B. (“Plaintiff Minor
`Child”) (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by their attorney, bring this
`action for punitive damages, actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys fees,
`and costs, against EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. (“Defendant ESI”), ACCREDO
`HEALTH GROUP,
`INC.
`(“Defendant AHG”) and NATIONAL
`RECOVERY AGENCY (“Defendant NRA”) (collectively referred to as
`“Defendants”) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
`Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq. (“RFDCPA”), both of which prohibit debt
`collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices, and the torts
`of Negligence, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
`3. Plaintiffs make these allegations on information and belief, with the exception
`of those allegations that pertain to the Plaintiffs, or to the Plaintiffs’ counsel,
`which Plaintiffs allege on personal knowledge.
`4. While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint
`alleges violations of the statutes cited in their entirety.
`5. All violations by Defendants were knowing, willful, and intentional, and
`Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such
`violations.
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 1 OF 14
`
`
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3
`
`7.
`
`6. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of a Defendant’s name in this Complaint
`includes all agents, principles, managing agents, employees, officers, members,
`directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees,
`representatives, and insurers of those Defendants named.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), which states
`that such actions may be brought and heard before “any appropriate United States
`district court without regard to the amount in controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`which grants this court original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the
`laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for pendent state law
`claims.
`8. This action arises out of Defendants’ violations of the FDCPA, the RFDCPA,
`and the torts of Negligence, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
`9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts and
`transactions occurred here, Plaintiffs reside here, and Defendants transact
`business here.
`
`FDCPA AND RFDCPA
`10. In enacting the FDCPA, Congress found that:
`There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt
`a.
`collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection
`practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital
`instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
`Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to
`protect consumers.
`c. Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection
`practices are available for the effective collection of debts.
`Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in
`interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such
`
`b.
`
`d.
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 2 OF 14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4
`
`e.
`
`commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate
`in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.
`It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practice by
`debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using
`abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to
`promote consistent State action to protect Consumers against debt collection
`abuses. 15 U.S.C. § 1692.
`11. Similarly, when enacting the RFDCPA, the California Legislature found that:
`
`The banking and credit system and grantors of credit to consumers are
`dependent upon the collection of just and owing debts. Unfair or
`deceptive collection practices undermine the public confidence which
`is essential to the continued functioning of the banking and credit
`system and sound extensions of credit to consumers. Cal. Civil Code
`§ 1788.1(a)(1).
`
`12. The FDCPA and the RFDCPA are both strict liability statutes. That is, a
`plaintiff need not prove intent or knowledge on the part of the debt collector to
`establish liability. See Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055,
`1060-61 (9th Cir. 2011); Donohue v. Quick Collect, 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (“[t]he
`FDCPA is a strict liability statute that makes debt collectors liable for violations
`that are not knowing or intentional”).
`13. To further protect consumers, claims under the FDCPA and RFDCPA are to be
`judged according to the “least sophisticated debtor” or “least sophisticated
`consumer” standard. Gonzales at 1061. This standard is lower than the
`“reasonable debtor” standard, and is specifically designed to protect consumers
`of below average and sophistication or intelligence. Id. In addition, a plaintiff
`need not even have actually been misled or deceived by the debt collector’s
`communication. Rather, liability depends on whether the hypothetical least
`sophisticated debtor – someone who is uninformed and naïve – would have
`
`
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 3 OF 14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5
`
`likely been misled. Id.; see also Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs., 755
`F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2014).
`
`PARTIES
`14. Plaintiffs Leo Byrne and Minor Child D.B. are natural persons who reside in
`Orange County, California. Plaintiffs are “consumers” as that term is defined by
`15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) and “Debtors” as that term is defined by California Civil
`Code § 1788.2(h). Plaintiff Minor Child is a “disabled persons” as that term is
`defined in subdivision (g) of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761.
`15. Defendant Express Scripts, Inc. is a Delaware corporation operating from an
`address of One Express Way, St Louis, MO 63121, and is a “Debt Collector” as
`that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c)
`because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to
`collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not originate. It
`attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including
`consumers in the State of California. One of its primary business purposes is the
`collection of defaulted consumer debts, and, in fact was acting as a debt collector
`as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiffs.
`16. Defendant Accredo Health Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation operating from
`an address of One Espress Way, St. Louis, MO 63121, and is a “Debt Collector”
`as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c)
`because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to
`collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not originate. It
`attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including
`consumers in the State of California. One of its primary business purposes is the
`collection of defaulted consumer debts, and, in fact was acting as a debt collector
`as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiffs.
`17. Defendant National Recovery Agency is a Pennsylvania corporation operating
`from an address of 2491 Paxton Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111, and is a “Debt
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 4 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6
`
`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
`
`Collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Cal. Civ. Code §
`1788.2(c) because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or
`attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not
`originate. It operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect
`debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of
`California. Its principal, if not sole, business purpose is the collection of defaulted
`consumer debts originated by others, and, in fact was acting as a debt collector as
`to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiffs.
`18. This case involves money due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a
`natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction. As such, this action
`arises out of a “consumer debt” and “consumer credit” as those terms are
`defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(f).
`19. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege that at all times herein
`mentioned Named Defendants were agents, officers, directors, managing
`agents, employee and/or joint venturer of each of their co-defendants and, in
`doing the things hereafter mentioned, each was acting in the scope of his
`authority as such agent, officer, director, managing agent, employee, and/or
`joint venturer, and with the permission, knowledge, ratification, and consent of
`their co-defendants, and each of them. Any reference hereafter to “Defendants”
`without further qualification is meant by Plaintiffs to refer to each Defendant,
`and all of them, named above.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`20. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Orange County, California.
`21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times relevant,
`Defendants conducted and continue to conduct business in the State of
`California.
`22. One of Defendant ESI’s primary business purposes is the collection of defaulted
`consumer debts. ESI collects defaulted consumer debts on a regular basis.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 5 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:7
`
`23. One of Defendant AHG’s primary business purposes is the collection of defaulted
`consumer debts. AHG collects defaulted consumer debts on a regular basis.
`24. Defendant NRA’s business consists solely of the acquisition and collection of
`delinquent consumer debts.
`25. Plaintiff Byrne was prescribed a monthly injection of Simponi for his arthritis,
`which he needed to be able to properly perform his duties as a fireman.
`26. Plaintiff Minor Child is Plaintiff Byrne’s son. He is disabled and unable to speak,
`and suffers from, among other things autism, epilepsy, and ulcers. He was
`prescribed Humira monthly, which he needed to assist with his numerous medical
`conditions.
`27. Both Plaintiffs’ monthly medications were mailed to Plaintiffs’ house monthly,
`and each month Defendants AHG and ESI would call Plaintiff Byrne to ask if he
`was ready for the next month’s medication to be sent out.
`a. Every month, Defendants AHG and ESI would ask Plaintiff Byrne for
`the $200 co-pay for each medication, and Plaintiff Byrne would always
`respond by telling them he had a co-pay assist program they needed to
`bill through Janssen Care Path (“JCP”).
`b. Each month, the AHG/ESI representative would acknowledge that the
`JCP card was on file, and sometimes the representative would properly
`bill JCP for the co-pay.
`c. Sometimes, however, the AHG/ESI representative would not properly
`bill JCP for the co-pay, and the following month Plaintiff Byrne would
`be asked for the co-pay for each medication for that month and the month
`prior (sometimes this went on for more than two months at a time)
`because the co-pay assistance program was not properly billed, and
`Plaintiffs were being improperly held responsible for a co-pay they did
`not owe.
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 6 OF 14
`
`
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:8
`
`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
`
`28. AHG and ESI’s attempts to collect the co-pays from Plaintiffs violated 15 U.S.C.
`§§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1).
`29. As of October 13, 2021, Defendant NRA was attempting to collect $948.33 from
`Plaintiffs for several months of improperly billed co-pays.
`a. Defendant NRA has called Plaintiff Byrne on the following dates:
`November 15, 2021, December 3, 2021, December 15, 2021, December
`28, 2021, December 28, 2021, January 14, 2022, January 18, 2022, and
`January 31, 2022.
`30. By continuously calling Plaintiff Byrne in an attempt to collect a debt not owed
`by Plaintiffs, NRA violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(10),
`1692f, and 1692f(1).
`31. Plaintiff Byrne also received another bill dated October 8, 2021, from AHG/ESI
`for $200.
`32. AHG/ESI also caused Plaintiff Minor Child to not receive his Humira medication
`for four weeks because they failed to apply the co-pay assist information to his
`prescription.
`a. AHG/ESI refused to send an emergency dose until the improperly billed
`co-pays were brought to a zero balance. Getting the co-pay balance to
`zero took seven to ten business days.
`b. However, Plaintiff Minor Child never had a balance on his account
`regarding his prescriptions, because the co-pay assistance was there to
`pay for his co-pays.
`c. This caused Plaintiff Minor Child to be at risk of having to start the
`medication protocol from the beginning again, his inflammation
`skyrocketed and because he is nonverbal, he was unable to communicate
`this to his parents or others with words – so he reacted with aggression
`and violence. During the time Plaintiff Minor Child missed his
`medication because of AHG/ESI’s and NRA’s improper collections,
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 7 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:9
`
`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
`
`there were aggression incidents at school, at the park, and at home, and
`Plaintiff Minor Child had an increased amount of seizures due to the
`stress and anxiety related to the medical repercussions of missing several
`doses of Humira.
`33. As a result of AHG and ESI withholding medication from Plaintiffs due to an
`alleged balance being owed, AHG and ESI acted deceptively in violation of 15
`U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692e(10).
`34. AHG and ESI’s actions in withholding medication from Plaintiffs were harassing,
`and therefore violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d.
`35. AHG and ESI’s actions in withholding medication from Plaintiffs were
`unconscionable and unfair, and therefore violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.
`36. The time and effort it took for Plaintiff Byrne to make phone calls to AHG/ESI,
`when they would tell him each time it was fixed (but it never was), caused Plaintiff
`Byrne to decide to go without the medication and suffer the pain of his arthritis.
`37. Plaintiffs and their other family members moved into Plaintiff Byrne’s mother-
`in-law’s house in order to save money for these medications, in part due to the
`improper collections being inflicted on them by AHG/ESI, and their collector
`NRA. There are now seven people, including the disabled Plaintiff Minor Child,
`living at Plaintiff Byrne’s mother-in-law’s house.
`38. Defendants’ despicable and outrageous conduct was performed knowingly,
`deliberately and willfully, with reckless disregard of the probable consequences,
`were oppressive to Plaintiffs, and were malicious in that Plaintiffs’ suffering as a
`result of Defendants’ conduct was a virtual certainty.
`ACTUAL DAMAGES
`39. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection and
`intimidation tactics by these Defendants in the form of invasion of privacy,
`personal embarrassment, loss of personal reputation, loss of productive time,
`nausea, and feelings of fear, anxiety, hopelessness, anger, persecution, emotional
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 8 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:10
`
`distress, frustration, upset, humiliation, and embarrassment, amongst other
`negative emotions, as well as severe emotional distress and physical injury.
`PUNITIVE DAMAGES
`40. Defendants’ conduct was willful, repetitive, and outrageous and akin to the
`common law torts of, inter alia, invasion of privacy, defamation, and
`conversion.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF
`COUNT I
`VIOLATION OF § 1692E OF THE FDCPA
`(AGAINST NRA ONLY)
`41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`42. A debt collector violates § 1692e of the FDCPA when it uses any false, deceptive,
`or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any
`debt.
`43. Defendants each violated § 1692e when each, among other qualifying actions and
`omissions, willfully misrepresented the character, amount, or legal status of the
`debt, to wit: that Plaintiffs owed the debt to the Defendants when they do not.
`COUNT II
`VIOLATION OF § 1692F OF THE FDCPA
`(AGAINST NRA ONLY)
`44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`45. A debt collector violates § 1692f of the FDCPA when it uses unfair or
`unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
`46. Defendants each violated § 1692f when each, among other qualifying actions and
`omissions, willfully and without justification, attempted to collect amounts from
`
`///
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 9 OF 14
`
`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
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:11
`
`Plaintiffs that were not authorized to be collected from Plaintiffs by agreement or
`law.
`
`COUNT III
`VIOLATION OF § 1692D OF THE FDCPA
`47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`48. A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of
`which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
`collection of a debt.
`49. As a result of NRA’s continued collection attempts of a debt now owed by
`Plaintiffs, NRA violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d and 1692d(5).
`COUNT IV
`VIOLATION OF § 1788.17 OF THE RFDCPA
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`50. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`51. A defendant violates § 1788.17 of the RFDCPA when it fails to comply with
`the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692b to 1692j, inclusive.
`52. Defendants each violated § 1788.17 of the RFDCPA when they willfully
`engaged in conduct, the natural consequence of which the violation of 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(1) 1692f and 1692f(1).
`COUNT V
`NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`54. Negligent infliction of emotional distress results from the causation of severe
`emotional distress through negligent action.
`
`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
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 10 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:12
`
`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
`
`55. Defendants acted at the very least negligently by harassing Plaintiffs to pay for
`medication when Plaintiffs did not owe the debt.
`56. AHG and ESI acted at the very least negligently by improperly withholding
`medication from Plaintiffs.
`As a result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, Plaintiff Byrne and Plaintiff
`Byrne’s son suffered severe emotional, mental, and physical distress.
`COUNT VI
`INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`57. A defendant is liable for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
`when, through its outrageous conduct committed with reckless disregard of the
`probability that the victim would suffer emotional distress, and that conduct is
`a substantial factor in causing the victim’s severe emotional distress.
`58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`59. Defendants knew when they attempted to collect from Plaintiffs that Defendants
`knew of and had a duty to bill Plaintiffs’ co-pay assist program, JCP. Defendant
`also had reason to know that Plaintiff Byrne had a disabled minor child, was
`working as a firefighter, and was thus at a relative disadvantage to contest their
`claims that he owed them money. Defendants also had reason to believe that
`Plaintiff Minor Child is disabled and a minor, and was thus at a relative
`disadvantage to contest their claims that he owed them money.
`60. Defendants’ continued collection of an amount not owed by Plaintiffs was
`outrageous, especially because 1. they caused Plaintiff Minor Child a
`significant amount of medical issues because Defendants refused to send
`emergency doses of a necessary medication; and 2. They caused Plaintiff Byrne
`to go without his medication causing him physical and emotional pain and
`suffering because of the collections issue.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13
`
`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
`
`61. Defendants were aware of the medical conditions of both Plaintiffs, and acted
`with reckless disregard of the probability that both Plaintiffs would suffer
`emotional distress, knowing that both Plaintiffs would be affected by their
`conduct.
`62. Plaintiffs both suffered severe emotional distress, and it was a direct result of
`Defendants’ improper collections of amounts Plaintiffs did not owe – which
`resulted in the withholding of essential medication.
`COUNT VII
`NEGLIGENCE
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint
`as though fully stated herein.
`64. A defendant is liable for the tort of negligence when it fails to use reasonable
`care to prevent harm to others, and when the defendant’s actions or failure to
`act is a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiffs.
`65. Defendants violated at least one of their general duties of care to Plaintiffs when
`they, inter-alia, willingly continued to attempt to collect amounts from
`Plaintiffs, for Plaintiff Byrne’s and his disabled son’s co-pay when they knew
`of and had a duty to bill Plaintiffs’ co-pay assist program, JCP.
`66. As a direct result of Defendants’ lack of due care, Plaintiffs suffered actual
`damages in an amount to be proven at trial, that included both physical harm
`and emotional distress because essential medications were withheld pending
`payment of a debt not owed by Plaintiffs, and the process to fix Defendants’
`improper collections was so onerous that it caused an inordinate amount of
`stress and anxiety to both Plaintiffs.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered against each Defendant
`for:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 12 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:14
`
`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
`
`
`
`a) Award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) (FDCPA)
`and pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30 (RFDCPA), against each
`Defendant and for each Plaintiff, and,
`b) Award of statutory damages in the amount of $1000.00 pursuant to 15
`U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) (FDCPA) against each Defendant and for each
`Plaintiff, and,
`c) Award of statutory damages in the amount of $1000.00 pursuant to Cal.
`Civ. Code § 1788.30 (RFDCPA) against each Defendant and for each
`Plaintiff, and,
`d) Award of Treble damages pursuant to Cal Civ §3345, and
`e) Award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15
`U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) (FDCPA) and pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30
`(RFDCPA), against each Defendant and for each Plaintiff, and,
`f) Award for pre-judgment interest against each Defendant and for each
`Plaintiff, and,
`g) Award of exemplary and punitive damages, in an amount to be
`determined at trial, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3924 against each
`Defendant and for each Plaintiff, and,
`h) Award of compensatory damages for losses, in an amount to be
`determined at trial, pursuant to the common law of torts against each
`Defendant and for each Plaintiff, and
`i) Award for interest on the amount of losses incurred at the prevailing legal
`rate against each Defendant and for each Plaintiff, and
`j) Award to Plaintiff of such other and further relief as may be just and
`proper.
`
`///
`///
`///
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 13 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:15
`
`TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED
`67. Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
`America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`BY: /S/ LAUREN B. VEGGIAN
`LAUREN B. VEGGIAN, ESQ.
`MICHAEL F. CARDOZA, ESQ.
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`LEO BYRNE AND MINOR CHILD D.B.
`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 14 OF 14
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:22-cv-00934 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:16
`
`ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION REQUEST
`This notice is to demand that you preserve all documents, tangible things and
`electronically stored information (“ESI”) potentially relevant to any issues in the
`above-entitled matter. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, all
`information pertaining to the above matter, including specifically all recordings of
`any telephone communication between your company and Plaintiff.
`As used in this request, “you” and “your” or “your client” refers to your
`organizations, and its predecessors, successors in interest, assignees, parents,
`subsidiaries, divisions or affiliates, and their respective officers, directors,
`employees, servants, agents, attorneys, and accountants.
`Much of the information subject to disclosure or responsive to discovery is
`stored on your client’s current and former computer systems and other media and
`devices (such as: personal digital assistants, voice-messaging systems, online
`repositories and cell phones).
`Electronically stored information (“ESI”) should be afforded the broadest
`possible definition and includes (for example and not as an exclusive list)
`potentially relevant information whether electronically, magnetically or optically
`stored.
`This preservation obligation extends beyond ESI in yours or your client’s
`care, possession or custody and includes ESI in the custody of others that is subject
`to your client’s direction or control. You must notify any current or former agent,
`attorney, employee, custodian or contractor in possession of potentially relevant ESI
`to preserve such ESI to the full extent of your client’s obligation to do so, and you
`must try to secure their compliance.
`
`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
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION REQUEST
`
`THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
`
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
`
`548 MARKET ST. #80594
`
`