Roles reversed: JD Stuart Law Group sued for alleged debt collection practices



In a role reversal, a debt collector became the defendant after a plaintiff alleged that a Georgia-based legal group violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempts to collect debt.


Register for Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a personalized legal news feed. Track federal litigation, agreements and who gets the job by industry, practice area and region.

As seen on Radar, Michelle Rose of Lawrenceville, Georgia, sued the JD Stuart Law Group in Kennesaw after alleging that the company’s debt collection attempt violated the law.

According to the complaint, the JD Stuart Law Group said during an initial debt collection conversation with Rose that it would get a judgment against her if she did not make an immediate payment on her debt.

“Such a threat has eclipsed [Rose’s] right to challenge debt within 30 days, ”reads the complaint written by Rose’s attorney, Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law in Wilton, Connecticut. “Nowadays, [The J.D. Stuart Law Group] did not take legal action against [Rose], and so [The J.D. Stuart Law Group] does not have the current legal capacity or authority to obtain judgment against [Rose]. “

Led by John David Stuart, the JD Stuart Law Group is represented in this case by Atlanta-based Hawkins Parnell & Young partner Carl H. Anderson Jr. Neither Stuart nor Anderson responded to requests for comment.

“Deceptive acts”

Lemberg, who also did not respond to a request for comment, has requested a jury trial in the hopes of obtaining actual, triple and statutory damages for Rose. He claimed that the actions of the collection agency caused “a lot of confusion, stress and anxiety” to his client.

“[Rose] suffered and continues to suffer actual damage as a result of the defendant’s unlawful conduct, ”the complaint states. “As a direct consequence of the acts, practices and conduct of the defendant, [Rose] suffered and continues to suffer from anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear and frustration.

The complaint also cited a violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, alleging that “unfair or deceptive acts to collect debt have taken place in commerce.” He was reading, “[The] failure by the defendant to comply with these provisions constitutes an unfair or deceptive act under OCGA § 10-1-393 (a) and, as such, [Rose] is entitled to damages plus reasonable attorney fees.

Read more:

Lawyer or debt collector? Suit raises questions about attorneys and request letters

Source link


About Author

Leave A Reply