New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorney
888.271.7109
Menu
Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against

Paul J. Hooten & Associates

We defend against collection lawsuits, wage garnishments, and bank levies brought by Paul J. Hooten & Associates. It's not too late to hire a consumer lawyer to fight back, even if a Marshal or Sheriff is involved. Whether you're facing credit card debt, medical debt, tuition bills, or other consumer debt, we can help. We focus on the area of judgment-enforcement defense involving wage garnishments, bank seizures, or lawsuits (summons and complaints).

Paul J. Hooten & Associates is located at 5505 Nesconset Hwy, Mt Sinai, NY 11766 with a phone number of (631) 331-0547 and Fax number of (631) 331-2627 Its Better Business Profile is here.

If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.

Proposed Class Action Alleges Fair Debt Collection Violation by Paul J. Hooten & Associates

Issue of Law: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation due to false implication of a filed lawsuit against a consumer.

Summary: In Silber v. Paul J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC, a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the defendant, a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by falsely implying that a lawsuit had been filed against a New York consumer. The plaintiff received a debt collection letter with the subject line "RE: N. American Partners in Anesthesia, LLP v. [plaintiff's name]," which the suit argues falsely indicated that the creditor had initiated a lawsuit to collect the debt. The plaintiff alleges that this language is threatening and coercive, intended to scare him into making quick payment to resolve what appears to be a lawsuit against him. The case seeks to protect consumers from such misleading debt collection practices.

Discovery Compelled in FDCPA Case: Yancey v. Hooten

Summary: In Yancey v. Hooten, plaintiff Alicia Yancey brought an action against attorneys Paul J. Hooten and Thomas Rathgeb under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Yancey filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking information related to the defendants' debt collection practices. The court granted the motion, requiring the defendants to produce various documents, communications, contracts, and other materials.

3 Key Points of Law:

  1. Valid discovery requests should encompass any matter that bears on or could reasonably lead to relevant issues in the case (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 26(b)(1)).
  2. Attorney-client privilege does not extend to certain documents and information related to the attorney's engagement, legal services provided, and relationships with other parties (Display Key Number Topics 20, 21, 25, 26, 27).
  3. Documents related to collection activities, contracts, insurance agreements, and other materials can be considered discoverable if they may lead to admissible evidence regarding the defendants' debt collection practices (Display Key Number Topics 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29).

Conclusion: The court ordered the defendants to comply with the plaintiff's interrogatory requests and produce relevant documents, communications, contracts, and other materials related to their debt collection practices. This case underscores the importance of transparency and disclosure during discovery in FDCPA actions and reinforces the boundaries of attorney-client privilege in such cases.

5 Powerful Lawsuit Defenses for New York Debtors in 2022 and 2023

What is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA)?

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is a federal law in the United States that governs the practices of third-party debt collectors who attempt to collect debts on behalf of others. Enacted in 1977, the FDCPA aims to protect consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices.

Key provisions of the FDCPA include:

  1. Prohibited Actions: The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive or harassing behavior, including using threats, profane language, or repeated calls to annoy or harass consumers.

  2. Validation of Debts: Debt collectors are required to provide written validation of the debt within five days of initial contact if the consumer disputes the debt's validity.

  3. Communication Restrictions: The FDCPA outlines when and how debt collectors can communicate with consumers, such as limiting calls to certain hours and allowing consumers to request that communication be made through written correspondence only.

  4. Prohibition of False Representations: Debt collectors are not allowed to make false statements or misrepresent the amount owed, the collector's identity, or the consequences of not paying the debt.

  5. Cease and Desist Rights: Consumers have the right to request that debt collectors stop contacting them. Once this request is made in writing, the collector must cease further communication, except for specific legal actions, such as lawsuits.

  6. Verification of Disputed Debts: If a consumer disputes a debt's validity, the debt collector must verify the debt and provide evidence that the consumer owes the amount claimed.

  7. Prohibition of Unfair Practices: The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair practices, such as adding unauthorized charges or fees to the debt.

The FDCPA applies to third-party debt collectors and does not cover original creditors attempting to collect their debts directly. Violations of the FDCPA can result in legal action against the debt collector, and consumers may be entitled to damages and attorney's fees if their rights have been violated.

Lack of Evidence and Misapplied Liability in J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. La Reina Bar Corp.

Summary: In J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. La Reina Bar Corp., J & J Sports Prods., Inc. filed a lawsuit against La Reina Bar Corp., alleging unauthorized broadcasting of a boxing match. However, the case lacks evidence to establish whether the broadcast was transmitted via satellite or cable, leading to the rejection of claims under both Section 605(a) and Section 553(a)(1). Additionally, the claim under Section 605(e)(4) for vicarious liability fails as it targets manufacturers and distributors, not individual consumers like Ferreiras.

3 Key Points of Law:

Insufficient evidence: J & J, represented by Paul J. Hooten & Associates, failed to provide concrete evidence regarding the method of transmission (satellite or cable) in the alleged unauthorized broadcasting, leading to the rejection of Section 605(a) and Section 553(a)(1) claims.

Misapplied liability: J & J's attempt to impose liability on Ferreiras under Section 605(e)(4) fails since this provision targets manufacturers and distributors of piracy devices, not individual users like Ferreiras.

Vicarious liability: The claim for vicarious liability against Ferreiras lacks factual content and evidence, as the complaint contains only formulaic recitations without specific actions taken by her.

Case Citation: J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. La Reina Bar Corp., No. 15-CV-6546, 2019 WL 1297888, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019).

If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.