civ.No.5.'t(p&Z(r'o a o - Legal Aid Justice Center · 2020. 1. 9. · û2T - 5 2915 JU C. D EY c TERI CRAWFORD BY' q, Gm Y BROWN, LYDIA GREEN, LOREW A PENNWGTON,and PAIRICIA SAUNDERS,

IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTM CT COURTFOR TIIE W ESTERN DISTM CT OF VIRGW IA

(Charlottesville Division)

eLeRg's OFFICE u, ,s DlsT.Cm rAT C- LOU ESMLE, VA '

FILED

û2T - 5 2915JU C. D EY cBY' qTERI CRAW FORD

,

Gm Y BROW N,LYDIA GREEN,LOREW A PENNW GTON , andPAIRICIA SAUNDERS,Individually and on behalf of a1l personssim ilarly simated

Plaintiffs,

civ. No. 5.'t(p &Z(r'o a oJURY TRIAL REQIJESTEDSENEX LAW, P.C.

Serve:PATRICK R. PETTIU2504 Build Am erica DriveHampton, VA 23666

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COO LAINT

Preliminaa Statem ent

The Defendant, Senex Law, P.C., is a debt collection t51-m located in Hnmpton,

Virginia, that focuses on collecting consllmer debt on behalf of apartment complexes

throughout the Commonwealth. This case concerns Senex's practice of sending dunning

letters to tenants directly from Senex's office, in envelopes bearing Senex's retul.n.'T

address. To disguise the true origin of the dunning letters, the letters are printed on the

individual landlord's letterhead and purport to be sir ed by a representative of the

landlord. However, those signatures are digitally affxed to the letters by Senex at

Case 3:16-cv-00073-GEC Document 1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 30 Pageid#: 1

Senex's office before the dunning letters CiNotices'') are sent dlectly to the debtors. '

Senex intentionally designs the letters so that they appear to com e directly from the

landlord (or its property managers). Accordingly, Senex has violated and continues to

violate tlze requirements of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. j

1692 et seq. by sending Notices directly to tenants without identifying itself as a debt

collector.

This suit is based on Notices like those described above sent by Senex to plaintiffs

Ted Crawford, Garry Brown, Lydia Green, Loretta Pennington, and Patdda Satmders on

behalf of their landlords. Because Senex was not the party to which the rent was

originally due tmder the lease, Senex is attempting to collect debts on behalf of another.

By so doing, Senex triggers multiple legal obligations under the FDCPA, each of which

Senex failed to meet. Through their deceptive Notices, Senex deprived plaintiffs of notice

of their dispute rights and hampered their ability to challenge eviction proceedings and

debt collection efforts.

Letal Violations

As an entity that regularly tçuses any instrum entality of interstate comm erce or the

mails in any business ihe principal pumose of wlzich is the collection of any debts, or

who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or

asserted to be owed or due another,'' Senex is a ççdebt collector'' under the Fair Debt

Collections Practices Act ($'FDCPA''). 15. U.S.C. j 1692a(6). As such, Senex may not

employ false, deceptive or misleading means when collecting debt. 1d. j 1692e. Yet

Senex does just that by sending dunning letters that purport to come from the landlord

when, in fact, they com e 9om Senex. Additionally, the dunning letters Senex sends

2


directly to consllmers are required to contain certain information set forth at 15 U.S.C. j

1692g. However, the Senex dunning letters do not contain the information required in j

1692g(a)(3)-(5). Senex's dunning letters therefore violate the FDCPA in numerous

respects. Plaintiffs bdng this claim individually and on behalf of a11 of those in the

Commonwealth of Virginia who have received, and who during the pendency of tllis

lawsuit receive, dunning letters from Senex that purport to have been sent by their

landlord and which do not contain the required j 1692g disclostlres. Plaintiffs request

compensatory damages including actual damages, class-wide statm ory damages,

injunctive relief against conthmed predatory debt collection practices, and payment of

their attorneys' fees and costs.

Venue and Jurisdiction

1. Teli Crawford, Garry Brown, Lydia Green, Loretta Pennington, and

Patricia Stmders sue defendant, Senex Law, P.C., for violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), j 1692d, j 1692e(2)(A), (5), (10), (11) and (14),

16924941), and j 1692g.

Jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim lies in tllis court ptlrsuant to 28

U.S.C. j 1331 and 15 U.S.C. j 1692k(d).

3. Venue is proper in this court as multiple Notices complained of herein

were directed to consllmers at their residences in Albem arle Cotmty, Virginia.

Parties

Plaintiff Teri Crawford is an adult resident of M bemarle Colmty. M s

Crawford is m anied to Elim elee de 1os Santos, and sometimes goes by Teri de 1os Santos.

5. Plaintiff Garry Brown is an adult resident of M bemarle Cotmty.

3


6. Plaintiff Lydia Green is an adult resident of the City of Richm ond.

7. Plaintiff Loretta Pennington is an adult resident of Rockinghnm Cotmty.

8. Plaintiff Patricia Satmders is an adult resident of the City of Richmond.

9. Each of the Plaintiffs is a consumer within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15

U.S.C. j 1692a(3), because each allegedly accrued overdue rent for their primaly

residence, which is a debt for personal, fnmily or household purposes.

10. Defendant Senex Law, P.C. is a V/ginia Professional Cop oration with a

principal place of business at 2504 Build Amedca Dr., Hnmpton, VA 23666.

1 1. Senex is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. j

1692a(6), because it ççuses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any

business the plincipal pum ose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regulady

collects or atlempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be

owed or due anothen''

12. Senex Law, P.C. was formerly known as Sage Law Group, and continues

to operate in the snme mnnner as it did tmder its prior trade nnme.

STATEM ENT OF FACTS

Backeround

13. Senex serves multi-fnmily housing owners and property m anagers,

including sending tenants Notices related to debt collection and eviction proceedings.

14. Senex advertises itself as a 'tmulti-family 1aw f1rm that uses custom , web-

based soflware to process legal documents quickly, cheaply, and accurately.''

15. As of the tiling of this Complaint, and at al1 relevant times prior, tlze

portion of Senex's website addressed to property managers included the following:

4


You're a property m anager, not a lawyer. W hy should you have todo legal work? W ith Senex, you won't have to prepare and deliverNotices to your residents who owe rent and late fees. You won'thave to go to court and possibly face opposing counsel. W e do a11that - and more.

and purports to tddo all of the paperwork'' in collecting rent, late fees ldand removing non-

aying residents.''P

16. Upon information and belief, Senex is hired by Abbington Crossing,

Grassy Creek M obile Hom e Park, Glenway Green, and many other multifamily rental

properties (collectively the Gtandlords''), not parties to this action, to collect on allegedly

past due rent paym ents under the residents' respective leases.

17. Upon information and belietl Senex uses the following process to send

Notices to residents who are late on rent payments: a) the Landlord sends Senex a list of

accounts for which a debt is allegedly past due, b) Senex prepares the noncompliance

dllnning letter on Landlord letterhead, c) the digital sirature of the landlord is placed on

the Notice at Senex's office by Senex persomzel, d) Senex personnel then plints out and

sends the Notice directly to the tenant.

18. Through Notices and other correspondençe sent by Senex to tenants as a

result of past-due rent allegedly owed on the recipient's primary residence (hereafter

referred to as ttNotices''), Senex attempted to collect debts or pumorted debts 9om

plaintiffs using the m ails or other m eans of interstate commerce.

19. A1l Notices were on Landlord letterhead and were purportedly sir ed by a

staff m ember of Landlord, when in fact the signature was affixed by Senex. Each Notice

was mailed in an envelope bearing Senex's P.O. Box rettu'n address in Hnmpton,

Virginia, and bore date-stamped postage from a Hampton zip code.

5


20. Notices sent between June 2014 - January 2016 indicate that the Landlord

has now retained Senex, which drafted the Notices. The Notices still purport to com e

9om the Landlord when in fact Senex did much more thanjust draft the Notices.

21. For each Notice sent by Senex, tmder the guise of Landlord, plaintiffs

were charged ddattorneys' fees'' of at least twenty-seven dollars ($27).

22. This business model is directly dnmaging to plaintiffs as fees are charged

each tim e Notices are sent for which plaintiffs are allegedly liable even though they do

not ptlrport to come *om attom eys. 'I'his business m odel also leads to additional fees

9om multiple and repetitive court filings costly to both the plaintiffs and the courts.

Statutorv Framework

23. As an entity that regularly tçuses any instrumentality of interstate

commerce or the m ails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of

any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another,'' Senex is a tEdebt collector'' under the

Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ($TDCPA''). 15. U.S.C. j 1692a(6) (2012).

24. As such, Senex may not employ false, deceptive or m isleadihg means

when collecting debt. f#. j 1692e.

25. The Notices sent to the plaintiffs were deceptive because the notices

purportedly cnm e 9om the Landlords, when in fact they actually came 9om Senex.

26. Additionally, the Notices Senex yends directly to consumers are required

to contain certain information set forth at 15 U.S.C. j 1692g.

27. However, the Notices do not contain the information required in j

1692g(a)(3)-(5).

6


Individual Plaintiffs' Facts

M s. Teri Crawford

28. ln 2012, M s. Crawford, her husband, and her children moved into an

apartment rented 9om Squire Hill Charlottesville Associates, d/b/a Abbington Crossing

(Wbbington'), in Albemarle Cotmty, Virginia.

29. In Febnlary 2015, her apartment flooded due to no fault of M s. Crawford

or her family and M s. Crawford and her family were forced to move because of extensive

flood damage.

30. On Febrtzary 18, 2015, M s. Crawford and her fnmily moved to another

tmit in Abbington Crossing.

Because of M s. Crawford's alleged past due rent, Abbington retained

Senex, a collections flrm, to send an eviction Notice to M s. Crawford.

32. Senex drafted and mailed multiple Notices of noncompliance for M s.

Crawford's alleged failure to pay rent, which were collection letters indicating varying

amotmts of past rent owed.

33. On November 6, 2015, five days after rent was due, M s. Crawford

received a Notice of non-compliance for failure to pay rent for the m onth of November.

34. The November Notice described above informed M s. Crawford that she

owed Abbington Crossing $1,231.37 in rent, $1 15.40 in late fees, and $30 in attorneys'

fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exbibit A,

Crawford November 2015 Notice.

35. On August 8, 2016, seven days after rent was due, M s. Crawford received

a Notice of non-compliance for failtlre to pay rent for the month of August.


36. The August Notice described above informed M s. Crawford that she owed

Abbington Crossing $266.38 in rent, $0 in late fees, and $35.00 in attorneys' fees for the

generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit B, Crawford August

2016 Notice.

37. On September 6, 2016, tive days after rent was due, a Notice of non-

compliance for alleged failtlre to pay rent for the m onth of September was sent to M s.

Crawford.

38. The September Notice descdbed above informed M s. Crawford that she

owed Abbington Crossing $1,237.62 in rent, $1 17.40 in late fees, and $35.00 in

attorneys' fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit

C, Crawford September Notice.

39. The envelope in which each Notice of non-compliance was mailed had

two clear plastic slots. A cover sheet was placed inside the envelope in such a way as to

make visible tllrough the slots the address of the recipient (Ms. Crawford) and the retllrn '

address of the sender. The sender was listed as the landlord, Abbington Crossing, with

the retnrn address as in the care of P.O. Box #3472, Hampton, VA 23663.

40. The Hampton P.O. box belongs to Senex, not Abbington Crossing.

41. The envelopes had printed ink postage with a zip code of 23651,

indicating that the letters were m ailed 9om the Hampton area, not Albem arle Colmty

where the landlord was located. Senex's primary place of business is in Hampton. The

landlord's primary place of business is in Albemarle County.

42. Throughout this time period, M s. Crawford also received several Unlawful

Detainer suits wllich had been filed on behalf of her landlord in the local general district

8


court. A11 of those Unlawful Detainers were mailed to her by Senex, in an envelope

bearing Senex's name and showing Senex's feturn address to be P.O. Box #3472,

Hampton, VA 23663, the same rettu'n address as the dunning letters purportedly from the

Landlord. (See attached Exhibit D, an Unlawful Detainer that Ms. Crawford received

9om Senex.)

43.

was sought by Senex's letters, was rent for M s. Crawford's primary residence.

44. The Notices described above did not hldicate that they were sent by Senex

The rent alleged to be past due as described above, and collection of which

under the guise of Abbington, only that they were drafted by Senex.

The Notices descdbed above were on Abbington Crossing letterhead and

were purportedly sir ed by a staff mem ber of Abbington Crossing.

46. Upon infonuation and belietl the signatures were digitally added to the

Notices by Senex personnel at the Senex offices.

47. Every Notice described above failed to indicate that the Notice was sent

by Senex tmder the guise of Abbington, and failed to include j 1692g language informing

M s. Crawford of the true origin of the Notices being Senex, as debt collector.

48. Every Notice descdbed above also failed to give her Notice of her rights

under the FDCPA including her right to contest the debt or ask for verification within 30

days.

49. After the above Notices described above were sent to M s. Crawford,

Senex filed a nllmber of eviction lawsuits against her with the following results:

Rent Notice Hearing Hearing Plaintiff OutcomeDate Date Type

11/06/15 12/10/15 Unlawful Squire Hill DismissedDetainer Charlottesville

Associates

9


01/06/16 03/03/16 Unlawful Squire Hill PlaintiffDetainer Charlottesville

AssociatesUnknown 07/07/2016 Unlawful Squire Hill Plaintiff

Detainer Charlottesville. AssociatesUnknown 08/11/2016 Unlawful Squire Hill Dismissed

Detainer CharlottesvilleAssociates

9/06/16 10/13/16 Unlawful Squire Hill PendingDetainer Charlottesville

Associates

50. Senex implem ented a practice of filing a separate lawsuit for each month

M s. Crawford allegedly failed to timely pay her rent, causing her to incur separate legal

fees and costs for each of those months.

51.

the eviction for a particular month.

52. M s. Crawford and her fam ily suffered nnxiety and mental distress as a

result of these non-compliance Notices and subsequent lawsuits.

M s. Patricia Saunders

53. In November 2014, Patricia Saunders and her great-nephew, who is in her

custody, moved into Glenway Court in Richmond, VA.

54. Glenway Green retained collections flrm, Senex, to generate Notices

through its autom ated system for tenants whose rent was allegedly past due.

Senex charged these fees regardless of whether it dism issed or nonsuited

55. Upon information and belietl because of Ms. Saunders's alleged past due

rent, Glenway Green passed M s. Saunders's account information on to Senex so that

Senex could collect the debt.

10


56. Senex drafted and mailed multiple Notices of noncompliancç for M s.

Satmders's alleged failure to pay rent, which were collection letters indicating varying

nm ounts of past rent owed.

57. On November 6, 2015, five days after rent was due, a Notice alleging non-

, compliance for failure to pay rent for the month of November was sent to M s. Satmders.

58. The November Notice described above informed M s. Satmders that she

allegedly owed Glenway Green $838.54 in rent, $81.58 in late fees, and $30.00 in

attom eys' fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit

E, Saunders November 2015 Notice.

59. On February 8, 2016, seven days after rent was due, a Notice alleging non-

compliance for faillzre to pay rent for the month of February was sent to M s. Satmders.

60. The February Notice described above informed M s. Saunders that she



F, Saunders Febnzary 2016 Notice.

61. On M arch 7, 2016, six days after rent was due, a Notice alleging non-

compliance for failtlre to pay rent for the month of M arch was sent to M s. Saunders.

62. The M arch Notice described above informed M s. Saunders that she


attorneys' fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exllibit

G, Saunders M arch 2016 Notice.

63. On M ay 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a Notice alleging non-

compliance for failure to pay rent for the m onth of M ay was sent to M s. Satmders.

1 1


64. The M ay Notice descdbed above inform ed M s. Saunders that she



H, Saunders M ay 2016 Notice.

65. On August 8, 2016, seven days after rent was due, a Notice alleging non-

compliance for failure to pay rent for the month of August was sent to M s. Satmders.

66. The August Notice described above informed M s. Satmders that she



1, Salmders August 2016 Notice. On September 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a

Notice alleging non-compliance for failure to pay rent for the month of September was

sent to M s. Salmders.

67. The September Notice described above informed M s. Saunders that she



J, Saunders September 2016 Notice.


two clear plastic sslots. A cover sheet was placed inside the envelope in such a way as to

make visible through the slots the address of the recipient (Ms. Saunders) and the retllrn

address of the sender. The sender was listed as the landlord, Glenway Green, with the

rettlrn address as in the care of P.O. Box #3472, Hmnpton, VA 23663.

12


69. The envelope had printed ink postage with a zip code of 23663, a zip code

in use in Hnmpton area, not the City of Richmond where the landlord is located, further

indicating that the letters were mailed 9om Hampton by Senex.

70. Tllroughout this tim e period, M s. Satmders also received several Unlawful

Detainer suits which had been filed on behalf of her landlord in Richmond General

District Court. A11 of those Unlawful Detainers were m ailed to her by Senex, in an

envelope bearing Senex's name and showing Senex's return address to be P.O. Box

#3472, Hamptono VA 23663, the same rettlnz address as the dunning letter Notices. (See

atlached Exhibit K, an Unlawful Detainer that Ms. Saunders received from Senex.)

71. The rent alleged to be past due as described above, and collection of wllich

was sought by Senex's letters, was rent for M s. Saunders's primary residence.

72. The Notices descdbed above did not indicate that they were sent by Senex

under the guise of Glenway Green, only that they were drafted by Senex.

73. The Notices described above were on Glenway Green letterhead and were

purportedly signed by a staff member of Glenway Green.

74. Every Notice described above failed to indicate that the Notice was in fact

sent by Senex under the guise of Glenway Green, and failed to include j 1692g language

informing M s. Satmders of the trtze origin of the Notices being Senex, a debt collection

frlrlxl.

75. Every Notice described above also failed to give her Notice of her rights

under the FDCPA including her l'ight to contest the debt or ask for verification within 30

days.

13


76. After the above Notices were sent to M s. Saunders, Senex filed a number

of eviction lawsuits against her with the following results:

Rent Notice Hearing H earing Plaintiff OutcomeDate Date Type

Unknown 10/7/2015 Unlawful Dominion Associates Dism issedDetainer T/A Glenway Green

11/17/2015 12/10/2015 Unlawful DomW on Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

Unknown 1/6/2016 Urllawful Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

1/20/2016 2/11/2016 Unlawftll Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

2/17/2016 3/9/2016 Urllawful Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

Unknown 6/7/2016 Unlawful Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

6/20/2016 7/7/2016 Unlawful Dolninion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

7/18/2016 8/11/2016 Unlawful Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

Unknown 9/8/2016 Unlawful Dominion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

77. Senex had a practice of filing a separate lawsuit for each month M s.

Saunders allegedly failed to timely pay her rent, causing her to inctlr separate legal fees

and costs for each of those months.

78. Senex charged these fees regardless of whether it dismissed or nonsuited


79. The envelopes in which the Unlawful Detainer actions were sent had

Senex, with the company logo and same Hampton return address, printed directly on their

exterior. Additionally, the printed inlc postage on the envelopes showed the Hampton zip

code. 'Ihis is different from the initial late Notices, which, although they used the same

address, listed Glenway Green as the sender.

14


80. Ms. Saunders retired whsn she moved to Glenway Green. She relies

prim arily on social security as her source of income. Her social security payments

typically nrrive on the fourth W ednesday of every m onth, the week before her rent is due.

She also currently receives supplem ental security income because she has custody of her

F eat nephew.

81. In Apdl 2015, M s. Saunders was told she received a social security over-

paym ent for the m onth. As a result, her next month's entire check was recaptured. She

was therefore tmable to pay for her rent in M ay 2015.

82. Prior to this point, M s. Satmders had always paid her rent on time. Her

church provided her with some fmancial assistance for when her social secudty check

was taken, but once all the fees were added on top of her rent, she was unable to fully pay

it.

83. Additionally, M s. Saunders was then diagnosed with diabetes. The new

medical expenses have further prevented her from being able to pay off the extra fees.

84. The fees have been a major sotlrce of stress for Ms. Satmders. On multiple

occasions, after receiving the late Notices and court notices, she has gone into the

landlord's office while crying. Having never been late on her rent before the incident

with her social security reclam ation, M s. Satmders feels very confnsed and is not used to

being in tMs type of situation.

85. M s. Satmders always creates a budget for her expenses, but she has now

had to take money away 9om her budget for groceries in order to pay the excess court

and late Notice fees that Senex generates.

15


86. M s. Saunders has taken care of her F eat nephew since he was two years

old. On multiple occasions she has had to explain to her nephew that she can't help him

pay for certain things because the m oney needs to instead be set aside to cover the fees.

M s. Lydia Green

87. M s. Green also lives in the Glenway Green complex in Richm ond, VA

23225 with her three adult cllildren.

88. Glenway Green retained Senex to generate Notices tbrough its automated

system for tenants whose rent was allegedly past due.

89. Senex drafted and m ailed multiple Notices of noncompliance for M s.

Green's alleged failure to pay rent, which were collection letters indicating varying

nm otmts of past rent owed.

90. On November 6, 2015, five days after the November rent was due, a

Notice of non-compliance for alleged failure to pay rent for the month of November was

sent to M s. Green.

91. The November Notice described above inform ed M s. Green that she

allegedly owed Glenway Green $852.85 in rent, $80.10 in late fees, and $30 in attorneys'

fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit L, Green

November 2015 Notice.

92. On December 7, 2015, six days after rent was due, a Notice of non-

compliance for alleged failure to pay rent for the m onth of December was sent to M s.

Green.

93. The December Notice described above informed M s. Green that she


16


attorneys' fees for the genetation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exbibit

M , Green December 2015 Notice.

94. On Jmmary 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a Notice of non-

compliance for alleged failure to pay rent for the month of January was sent to M s.

Green.

95. The Januarj Notice desclibed above informed Ms. Green that shè



N, Green Jmmary 2016 Notice.

96. On February 8, 2016, seven days after rent was due, a Notice of non-

compliance for alleged failure to pay rent for the month of February was sent to M s.

Green.

The February Notice descdbed above informed M s. Green that she


attorneys' fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exlzibit

0, Green February 2016 Notice.I

98. On Apdl 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a Notice of non-compliance

for alleged failure to pay rent for the month of April was sent to M s. Green.A

99. The April Notice describyd above informed M s. Green that she owed

allegedly Glenway Green $883.07 in rent, $83.79 in late fees, and $30 in attorneys' fees

for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit P, Green April

2016 Notice.

17


100. On July 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a Notice of non-compliance

for alleged failure to pay rent for the month of July was sent to M s. Green.

101. The July Notice descdbed above intbrmed M s. Green that she owed

allegedly Glenway Green $885.51 in rent, $83.79 in late fees, and $35.00 in attomeys'

fees for the generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit Q, Green

July 2016 Notice.

102. On September 6, 2016, five days after rent was due, a Notice of non-

compliance for alleged faillzre to pay rent for the month of September was sent to M s.

Green.

103. The September Notice described above inform ed M s. Green that she owed

Glenway Green $873.91 in rent, $83.80 in late fees, and $35.00 in attorneys' fees for the

generation of the Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit R, Green September

2016 Notice.


two clear plastic slots. A cover sheet was placed inside the envelope in such a way as to

make visible through the slots the address of the recipient (Ms. Green) and the return

address of the sender. The sender was listed as the landlord, Glenway Green, with the

refllrn address as in the care of P.O. Box #3472, Hnmpton, VA 23663.

105. The envelopes had printed ink postage with a zip code of 23663,

indicating that the letters were mailed from Hampton. Senex's primary place of business

is in Hampton. The landlord's primary place of business is in Richmond.

106. The rent alleged to be past due as described above, and collection of which

was sought by Senex's letters, was rent for M s. Green's primary residence.

18


(

107. The Notices described above did not indicate that they were sent by Senex

under the guise of Glenway Green, only that they were drafted by Senex.

108. The Notices described above were on Glenway Greeù letterhead and were

purportedly sir ed by a staff member of Glenway Green.

109. Upon infonnation and belie: the signatuies were digitally added to the

Notices by Senex personnel at the Senex ofsces.

1 10. Every Notice described above failed to indicate that the Notice was sent

by Senex under the guise of Glenway Green, and failed to include j 1692g language

informing M s. Green of the tnze origin of the Notices as being from Senex, a debt

collection flrm.

1 11. Every Notice described above also failed to give her Notice of her lights

tmder the FDCPA including her light to contest the debt or ask for velification within 30

.:days.

1 12. After the above Notices descdbed above were sent by Senex to M s. Green,

Senex filed a number of eviction lawsuits against her with the following results:

Rent Notice H earing Hearing Plaintiff Outcom eDate Date Type

Unknown 11/4/2015 Unlawful Dom inion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green




Unknown 6/7/2016 Unlawful Dom inion Associates , PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green

7/18/2016 8/11/2016 Ulllawful Dom inion Associates PlaintiffDetainer T/A Glenway Green


19


1 13. Senex had a practice of filing a separate lawsuit for each month M s. Green

allegedly failed to timely pay her rent, causing her to incur separate legal fees and costs

for each of those months.

114. Senex charged these fees regardless of whether it diqmissed or nonsuited


1 15. The envelopes in wllich the Urllawful Detainer actions were sent had

Senex, with the company logo and same Hnmpton address, printed directly on their

exterior. Additionally, the plinted ink postage on the envelopes showed the Hnmpton zip

de 'C0 .

116. M s. Green has incurred 'actual dam ages, including emotional distress, as a

result of defendant's actions.

117. The excess attorney's fees and filing fees charged by defendant m'e a

major factor in Ms. Green's inability to pay the alleged balances and become current on

rent paym ents. She routinely spent m oney that would otherwise go towards next month's

rent on paying off the prior month's fees. ,

118. The Notices sent by defendant cause M s. Green intense stTess and anxiety

over her inability to pay the associated fees. M s. Green has difficulty sleeping due to her

persistent concerns over where she will get the money to cover the fees and then

ultimately pay her rent.

119. Senex's practice of filing a lawsuit for each month she has allegedly failed

to pay rent further exacerbates her skess and anxiety. For each specifk lawsttit that is

20


filed, M s. Green is forced to take a day off from work to go to court. Tlzis causes her to

lose part of her pay check and m akes paying the fees even more diffkult.

120. M s. Green's inability to pay the fees assessed by defendant and the

resulting zlnlawful detainerjudgments have damaged her credit.

M r. Garry Brown

121. In 2013, GaI'I'y Brown, his wife, and their two children moved into

Abbington Crossings (Wbbington'') in Charlottesville, Virgizlia.

122. Abbington hired Senex to generate Notices against M r. Brown through its

automated system. '

123. Senex drafted and mailed multiple Notices of noncompliance for failure to

pay rent, which were collection letters indicating a certain amount was past due.

124. M r. Brown was mailed a Notice of non-compliance dated M ay 6, 2016,

five days after llis rent was due, for alleged failure to pay rent for the m onth of M ay.

125. The M ay Notice alleged Mr. Brown owed Abbington Crossing $1,195.09

in rent, $1 18.39 in late fees, and $35 in attorneys' fees for the generation of the Notice of

non-compliance. See attached Exhibit S, Brown M ay 2016 Notice.

126. M r. Brown was mailed a Notice of non-compliance dated June 6, 2016,

five days after llis rent was due, for alleged failtlre to pay rent for the month of Jtme.

127. The June Notice informed M r. Brown that he owed Abbington Crossing

$1,194.99 in rent, $1 18.39 in late fees, and $35 in attorneys' fees for the generation of the

Notice of non-compliance. See attached Exhibit T, Brown June 2016 Notice.

21


128. Included in the June 2016 Notice was a covçr sheet, folded in such a way

that it provided the destination address and rettu'n address through clear panels in the

envelope.

129. The return address on the cover sheet included with the Notice of non-

compliance listbd the landlord Abbington Crossing as the sender, and listed the address as

being in the care of P.O. Box #3472, Hnmpton, VA 23663.

130. The rent alleged to be past due and the collection of which was sought by

Senex's letters was rent for M r. Brown's primary residence.

The Notices described above did not indicate that they were sent by

Senex, only that they were drafted by Senex.

The Notices described above were on Abbington Crossing letterhead and

were purportedly sir ed by a staff member of Abbington Crossing.

133. Upon inform ation and belief, the sir atures were digitally added to the

Notices by Senex personnel at the Senex offices.

134. Every Notice described above failed to indicate that the Notice was

actually sent by Senex tmder the guise of Abbington and failed to include j 1692g

language inform ing M r. Brown that the true origin of the Notices was Senex, a debt

collection firm.

Every Notice described above also failed to give M r. Brown Notice of his

rights tmder the FDCPA, including his right to contest the debt or ask for verification

within 30 days.

136. After the above-descdbed Notices were sent to M r. Brown, Senex filed an

eviction lawsuit against M r. Brown with the following results'.

22


Rent Notice Hearing Date Hearing Type Plaintiff OutcomeDate '


. Associates


Associates

137. The return address on the envelope in which the summons of unlawful

detainer was m ailed listed the 1aw flrm Senex, and listed the address as P.O. Box #3472,

Hnmpton, VA 23663.

138. This is the same refurn address as was listed on the cover sheets included

with the Notices of noncompliance received by M r. Brown in M ay and Jlme of 2016,

indicating that these Notices in fact originated with Senex. '

139. M ultiple noncompliance Notices and summonses for Ilnlawful detainer

and associated fees have caused M r. Brown signiticant anxiety and worry about llis

credit.

M s. Loretta Pennington .

140. In 2005 M s. Pennington moved into the Grassy Creek M obile Home Park

CtGrassy Creek'') in Hanisonburg, Virginia.

141. M s. Pennington originally occupied the address with her lm sband and

i child. She currently resides there with her child.I

142. Grassy Creek hired Senex to generate Notices against M s. Pennington

through its autom ated system .

143. Senex (Irahed and mailed multiple Notices of noncompliance for alleged

failures to pay rent, which were collection letters indicating varying am ounts of past due

rent were owed.)

23


144. M s. Pennington was m ailed a Notice of noncompliance dated September

7, 2016, six days aft. er her rent was due, for alleged failtlre to pay rent for the month of

September.

145. The above Notice alleged M s. Pennington owed Grassy Creek $379.77 in

rent, $33.32 in late fees, and $30 in attorneys' fees for the generation of the Notice of

noncompliance. See Exhibit U, Pennington September 2016 Notice.

146. The envelope in which the September 2016 Notice was mailed has printed

ink postage with a zip code of 23651, indicating that the letters were mailed 9om the

Hampton area. Senex's primary place of business is in Hampton. The landlord's prim ary

place of business is in Roclcingham County.

147. The rent alleged to be past due and the collection of wllich was sought by

Senex's letters was rent for M s. Pennington's primary residence.

148. The Notice described above did not indicate that it was sent by Senex,

only that they were drafted by Senex.

149. The Notice described above was on Grassy Creek letterhead and was

purportedly si> ed by a staff m ember of Grassy Creek.

150. Upon information and belietl the signature was digitally added to the

Notice by Senex personnel qt the Senex offce.

151. The Notice descdbed above failed to indicate that the Notice was actually

sent by Senex under the guise of Grassy Creek and failed to include j 1692g language

informing M s. Pennington that the true origin of the Notice was from a debt collector.

24


152. The Notice described aboye also failed to give M s. Pennington Notice of

her rights under the FDCPA, including her light to contest the debt or as for veriticationt

within 30 days.

153. After the above-described Notice was sent to M s. Pennington, Senex filed

an eviction lawsuit against M s. Pennington with the following results:

Rent Notice Hearing Date Hearing Type Plaintiff OutcomeDate

09/07/2016 10/11/2016 Unlawful Grassy Creek PendingDetainer Mobile Home

Park LLC

154. M s. Pennington and her family suffered anxiety and m ental distress as a

result of the Notices and eviction and associated late fees.

CLASS ACTION AI,LEGATIONS

155. The individual Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to. Rule 230943) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

156. The nnmed individual Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of present and

former tenants of residential properties located in Virginia whose Landlord engaged

Senex to facilitate overdue rent collection, and who received Notices for alleged past due

rent sent by Senex, which purported to have been sent by the Landlord and which did not

contain any of the j 1692g language.

157. Tenant m eans individuals who received at least one Notice of alleged past

due rent 9om Senex which did not contain the j 1692g language.

158. Tllis class of present and former tenants shall remain open through

pendency of this litigation.

25


159. Plaintiffs' claims meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1), Fed. R. Civil

Pro. because, upon information and belietl the nlzmber of individuals in the class exceeds

100 individuals.

160.' The relatively small nm otmt of the individual claims and the fm ancial

circllmstances of the class members make tie maintenance of separate actions by each

class member economically infeasible, resulting in a class so numerous that joinder of a1l

members is impracticable.

161. Plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) because there are

questions of 1aw and fact comm on to the class including:

a. W hether class members received Notices which threatened

eviction upon nonpayment of fees and alleged past due rent, and

which purported to come from Landlords but in fact were drafted

and sent by Senex;

b. W hether these Notices were required by the FDCPA to contain

certain notices and inform ation and violated these requirements;

and

c. W hether Senex failed to promulgate processes and procedtlres

sufficient to enstlre the Notices were acctlrate and legal.

162. The claim s of the nnmed Plaintiffs are typical of the claim s of 'the class,

thereby meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3) because they have the same interests

as the other members of their class and will vigorously pursue these interests on behalf of

the class.

26


163. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class,

thereby meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4), because Plaintiffs know of no

contlicts of interest between them selves and members of the class.

164. Plaintiffs further meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) because they are

represented by attorneys who are experienced litigators and who have handled nllmerous

actions in the federal courts, including complex class actions, and who will adequately

represent the interests of the entire class.

165. A class action is appropriate tmder Rule 23(b)(3) because:

a. The Defendant has acted on grotmds generally applicable to the class by

violating Plaintiffs' rights under the FDCPA.

b. Questions of law and fact common to class members predominate over

any questions affecting only individuals and to Plaintiffs' knowledge there

is no current litigation of individual claims pending in any forum .

166. A class action therefore will allow the claims to be efficiently adjudicated

in a single forum .

CAUSE OF ACTION: W OLATIONS OF THE FDCPA

167. A11 preceding parav aphs are realleged and incorporated herein by

reference.

168. At a11 times relevant to this action, Senex was a debt collector within the

menning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. j 1692a(6), because it engaged in a business which

regularly collected and attempted to collect debts owed or due to another which were

already in default through the instrum entalities of interstate comm erce.

27


169. M s. Crawford, M r. Brown, M s. Green, M s. Pennington, and M s. Satmders

are consnmers within the meaning of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. j 1692a(3) because the

alleged overdue rent were debts incurred for personal, fnmily, or household purposes.

170. W hen the Notices described above purported to com e 9om Landlords,

Senex used an identity inconsistent with its true identity, which is a violation of 15

U.S.C. j 1692e(14).

171. The misrepresentations regarding the true role of Senex ine afting,

sending, and administering the Notices described above were deceptive for pmposes of

the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. j 1692e(10).

172. The Notices descdbed above did not notify Plaintiffs that Senex was

attempting to collect a debt and that any inform ation obtained will be used for that

purpose, which is a violation of 15 U.S.C. j1692e(11) and 15 U.S.C. j1692g.

173. Defendant's noncompliance with the FDCPA was intentional within the

menning of 15 U.S.C. j 1692k, as defendant intended to and did in fact draft and mail the

defective Notices to M s. Crawford, M r. Brown, M s. Green, M s. Pennington, and M s.

Satmders. '

174. Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. j 1692d, j1692e(2)(A), (5),

(10), (11) and (14), and 1692g, causing actual injuries to Ms. Crawford, Mr. Brown, Ms.

Green, M s. Pennington, and M s. Satmders, thus mnking Senex liable to them in dnmages.

Requested Relief

W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court provide the following

relief:

175. Assumejmisdiction of tllis case;

28


176. Certify the plaintiff class pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(a) and (19(3);

Grant Plaintiffs a trial by jury on their claims;

178. Grant an award of statutory dnmages for a11 class members of $1,000 for

each violation of the FDCPA, ptlrsuant to 15 U.S.C. j 1692k(a)(2) and actual dnmages

including emotional diskess for a11 named class representatives as determined by thejury,

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. j 1692k(a)(1);

179. Grant an award of plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attomeys' fees, as

appropriate under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. j 1692k(a)(3); and

180. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deem s necessary and

Proper.

29


Respectfully submitted,

LE A L A1D STI CE

B# :Kim er y A. olla, VS No. 5625tki ustice4all.or )Bre E. Castaheda, V N o. 72809(bre [email protected])Sylvia Cosby Jones, VSB No. 35870([email protected])Simon Sandoval-M oshenberg, VSB No. 771 10(simon@justice4all-org)LEGAL AD JU STICE CEN TER1000 Preston Avenue, Suite AChadottesville, VA 22903(434) 977-0553

Date: October 5, 2016

r d

M . Bryan Slaughter, V SB No. 41910

(bslau@ ter@michiehamleû.com)E. Kyle M cNew, VSB No. 73210

([email protected])David W . Thomas, VSB No. 73700([email protected])Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel500 Court SquareSuite 300P.O. Box 298Chadottesville, VA 22902

(434) 951-7200

Counselfor theplaint#

39Case 3:16-cv-00073-GEC Document 1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 30 of 30 Pageid#: 30

Documents

civ.No.5.'t(p&Z(r'o a o - Legal Aid Justice Center · 2020. 1. 9. · û2T - 5 2915 JU C. D EY c TERI CRAWFORD BY' q, Gm Y BROWN, LYDIA GREEN, LOREW A PENNWGTON,and PAIRICIA SAUNDERS,