21. Guida's job is to locate, telephone, intimidate, and
harass judgment debtors' into paying judgments that R&D purchases. As such,
Guida is a person routinely and substantially engaged debt collection, which
debt collection activities make up a substantial portion of his income.
22. Guida's function is also that of R&D's and JB's
"attorney."
23. Although Guida does not hold a license to practice law,
Guida appeared in this case and indeed routinely appears in many or all of
R&D's cases before the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, and possibly
before other state courts and moves them for wage orders.
24. At all times relevant hereto, no defendant herein named
was represented by any attorney at law licensed in any jurisdiction.
25. Guida's actions constituted the illegal practice of law
without a license in that he represented at least one and possibly two
separate legal entities, R&D and JB before the Common Pleas Court of Luzerne
County.
26. Guida's actions further constituted the illegal practice
of law by threatening legal action that he, Guida, would bring against
plaintiff's employer for not quickly complying with a wage order he obtained
in the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court.
27. Guida's actions further constituted the illegal practice
of law by threatening to subpoena plaintiff's counsel before the Common
Pleas Court to punish him for not recommending compliance by plaintiff's
employer.
28. The defendant, at all times relevant to this cause of
action resided and still resides in Delaware County.
29. The defendant, R&D, with Guida acting as its "attorney"
appeared before the Honorable Thomas F. Burke, Jr. a judge of the Court of
Common Pleas of Luzerne County and move the court in writing for a wage
order against plaintiff's employer in Delaware County.
30. No motion for wage order was ever served upon the
plaintiff, even though Guida swore under oath that the same was served.
31. Court rules or local practice requirements in Luzerne
County require the filing of the motion and signed order with the
Prothonotary after its entry by the court.
32. Consequently, subsequent to the entry of the order for
wage attachment, Guida, who appeared before the court, was obligated by law
to take the motion and the order and file the same with the Prothonotary of
Luzerne County.
33. Guida, in an effort to obstruct and suppress detection
of the facts plead in his motion for wage order, removed the motion from the
court and retained it, so that there was no official record of what had
happened in the case.
34. The Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County presently
has no written record of the motion drafted by Guida.
35. In actuality, the motion, whose allegations were
suppressed by Guida's and actions added some $1,212.00 in bogus additional
costs effectively doubling it.
36. The additional costs consisted in the following:
i. $12 in interest for one month (1% a month);
ii. $1,000.00 in "counsel fees"
iii. $25 for certified mail
iv. $125 in "defendant locating fees."
37. Mr. Guida added the above "counsel fees" notwithstanding
that he is not an
attorney, nor did any defendant herein ever hire one.
38. Defendants Guida, R&D, JB and Rose Williams conspired
and carried through with a fraudulent scheme to defraud the plaintiff out of
$1,212.00 by adding the above bogus charges to a Delaware County District
Justice judgment originally in the amount of $1266.50.
Count I
39. All above paragraphs relevant hereto are incorporated
herein by reference.
40. R&D's actions constituted a "legal action" prohibited by
15 USC §1692i.
41. R&D transferred a Delaware County District Justice
judgment to Luzerne County for the purpose of making it convenient for R&D
and the other defendants and to subvert attempts to open the judgment due to
its remoteness from the plaintiff.
42. Luzerne County is approximately 115 miles from
plaintiff's residence in Delaware County.
43. Defendants' actions in removing the judgment to a remote
location andpetitioning for a wage order there violated §1692i and the FCEUA.
Count II
44. All above paragraphs relevant hereto are incorporated
herein by reference.
45. The entry of the judgment and the application for a wage
order in Luzerne County Common Pleas Court was accomplished without counsel
with the plaintiff, a corporation being represented by a layman.
46. A corporation must be represented by an attorney under
Pennsylvania law.
47. Actions taken by a lay person on behalf of a corporate
client are a nullity according to Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v.
Commonwealth (Commw. Ct. 2001) 767 A.2d 1130, 2001 Pa. Commw. Lexis 33.
48. Since the above actions were a nullity, no valid
judgment was secured in Luzerne County and therefore defendants' actions in
obtaining a judgment and securing a wage order violated §1692e and 1692f of
the FDCPA and the FCEUA.
49. Plaintiff's actions, as stated above, constituted a
violation of §1692d since their natural consequences were calculated to
harass, oppress or abuse the defendant at his place of employment without
authority of law.
Count III
50. All above paragraphs relevant hereto are incorporated
herein by reference.
51. Both defendant's Guida and Williams telephoned attorney
for plaintiff on September 29, 2003 and insisted that the judgment be paid
and that plaintiff's attorney cooperate with a wage order.
52. Williams advised counsel for the plaintiff that Guida
was president of JD.
53. Guida was not in fact a corporate officer of JD, and wan
not even aware that JD was a corporation.
54. In fact Guida, acting as an agent of all other
defendants herein, was simply the boyfriend of Williams who was used as the
"enforcer." Guida's tactics included profanity, verbal harassment,
strong-arm tactics and generally bullying unsophisticated judgment debtors,
such as the plaintiff and/or counsel.
55. Guida, when questioned about counsel fees, stated that
R&D was represented by a Bernard Kotulak, Esquire, an attorney in
Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, and that Mr. Kotulak "charged $1,000 for each"
such case.
56. Bernard Kutulak never represented R&D, nor any defendant
herein in this or any matter related to collection of judgments.
57. In fact, Guida never even sought advice of counsel and
as such, attempted to unlawfully enrich himself and the other defendants
through fraud on the plaintiff and upon the court. The said fraud in this
case amounted to approximately $1212.00.
58. Guida, in a conversation with counsel for plaintiff
demanded that counsel recommend to plaintiff's employer to comply with the
wage attachment.
59. Guida appeared unconcerned that counsel for plaintiff
did not representplaintiff's employer and could not recommend legal action
to them.
60. Upon questioning of Guida's authority to increase the
judgment, Guida attempted to bully counsel for plaintiff into compliance
stating, "I hope you will enjoy your visit to Luzerne County because I will
subpoena your ass up here with all your records and files!"
61. Guida continued the attempt at bullying with a stream of
obscenities in a last desperate attempt to secure payment of the judgment.
62. Guida and defendants' actions as stated above violated
§§1692d, 1692d and 1692f as well as the FCEUA.
Count IV
63. All above paragraphs relevant hereto are incorporated
herein by reference.
64. Upon information received Guida and other of the above
defendants herein have acted to conspire to defraud multiple unsuspecting
judgment debtors out of thousands of dollars and as such, the said actions
as stated herein above, are not bona fide errors or unintentional conduct.
65. Federal Courts have general equity authority and the
power to restrain future conduct.
66. Given the past conduct of defendants, there is a strong
likelihood that such conduct will be repeated.
67. This court is requested to enjoin all defendants from
enforcing this debt.
68. This court is further requested to sanction Guida for
the unauthorized practice of law and to enjoin future conduct of a similar
nature.
Count V
69. All above paragraphs relevant hereto are incorporated
herein by reference.
70. The above judgment of the Delaware County District
Justice was not based upon physical damages arising out of a residential
lease.
71. Likewise, the said judgment was not subject to
attachment pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §8127.
72. In its transcript of judgment, the lower court did not
list any sum as a sum that would have been subject to wage attachment.
73. Defendants therefore committed a fraud upon the
plaintiff, as well as upon the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, by
representing that the same was subject to attachment.
74. Defendants are therefore guilty of perjury, and as such
have violated §§1692d, 1692d and 1692f as well as the FCEUA.
75. Defendants actions amount to common law fraud upon the
plaintiff.
76. Defendants actions in this case were malicious,
fraudulent and outrageous and hence entitle the plaintiff to punitive
damages.
77. Defendants actions herein have subjected plaintiff to
humiliation and embarrassment, as well as fear and anxiety about the loss of
employment as a result.
78. Plaintiff has been required to retain counsel at the
rate of $200 a hour to prosecute this action. Plaintiff estimates that
approximately $10,000 in counsel fees alone will be required to litigate
this matter.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally
against the defendants herein for:
a. Actual damages;
b. Statutory damages
c. Punitive damages
d. For costs, interest, attorney’s fees;
e. For three times the actual damages
f. For an injunction against future conduct as enumerated
herein
g. and such other relief that the court feels is just and
proper.
s/ Lawrence S. Rubin, Esquire
Lawrence S. Rubin, Esquire
Attorney for the debtors
337 W State Street
Media, PA 19063-2615
(610) 565-6660
Fax: (610) 565-6660
