Debt Buyers using Confusing Names is a Hot Issue for The Langel Firm

We were busy in February 2015.

Debt Buyers Using Confusing Names in Litigation

We sued several creditors for continuing to use confusing names in court cases. We use recent precedent in Lee v. Forster & Garbus LLP in which a federal judge decided that the use of the "unusual A/P/O abbreviation" could confuse "the least sophisticated consumer" as to the identity of the creditor.

Despite the Lee case, debt buyers continue to use the "A/P/O" designation and variations of it (i.e. A/A/P, SUC). We are preparing to file a complaint against Velocity Investments, LLC for failing to make any distinction at all between creditors by using, "Velocity Investments, LLC Household Finance Corp."

We sued Midland Funding, LLC for continuing to use its non-existent "DBA" name[1] in New York judgment-enforcement proceedings.

We sued LVNV Funding, LLC for using "LVNV Funding, LLC, A/P/O GE Capital."

We sued Colorado Capital Investments (aside from allegedly targeting the wrong person) for using the name "Colorado Capital Investments, Inc., SUC Wachovia Bank Card Services."

We continue to litigate our class action against CACH, LLC for its incorrect use of CACH of Colorado, LLC—a misnamed entity that does not exist.

Defense lawyers seek to invoke the "materiality doctrine" to argue that misnaming the creditor does not "affect a consumer's ability to make an intelligent decision as to the alleged debt." In 2014, the judge in Lee disagreed by holding that the identity of the creditor need not be "material" to the communication for it to be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Improper-Service Cases

We sued Pinpoint Technologies 3, LLC for suing our client in New York after he had moved to Pennsylvania many years before. Like many of our clients, this one called us upon discovering his frozen bank account. We argued that Pinpoint and its lawyers, Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, violated the separate-entity rule for not serving the home-state bank with a restraining notice. As an extension of bad service, our clients often do not receive other due-process notices such as the Notice to Judgment Debtor or Obligor.

We convinced LR Credit 18, LLC and its attorneys, Mel Harris & Associates, LLC to vacate two credit-card judgments (over $12,000 each) and discontinue both cases based on our investigative research and arguments as to improper or "sewer service."

We compelled Equable Ascent Financial, LLC and its attorneys, Rubin & Rothman, LLC to stop its wage garnishment, vacate its judgment and discontinued its action. We subsequently sued Equable for allegedly suing in the wrong county, for letting Equable's debt-collector license lapse, and for lacking authority to do business in New York.