CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA COURT FILE NO.:

Mark Wagener-Perkins, Plaintiff, v. Convergent Resources, Inc. d/b/a ER Solutions, Inc., Defendant. COMPLAINT WITH JURY TRIAL DEMAND

JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. and supplemental jurisdiction exists for the State Law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Mark Wagener-Perkins, is a natural person who resides in the City of Minneapolis, County of Hennepin, in the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a(c). 3. Defendant Convergent Resources, Inc. d/b/a ER Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter Defendant ER) is a corporation doing business in the State of Minnesota, with a principal address of 500 SW 7th St, #A100, Renton, WA 98055, and is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Sometime prior to August 2005 Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt with US Bank credit card, which is a consumer debt as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5).

-1-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 7

5.

Plaintiff is now a recipient of Social Security Disability Insurance and is on a very limited and fixed budget.

6. 7.

Plaintiff has been diagnosed with cancer. At sometime prior to June 2005 Plaintiffs alleged account was forwarded to Defendant for collection.

8.

In June of 2005 Defendant initiated a series of telephone calls wherein Plaintiff hung up on Defendants agent who was being rude and belligerent about repayment of the alleged debt.

9.

Defendant immediately called back and asked why the call was terminated to which Plaintiff responded that he did not want to speak with Defendant anymore and hung up the telephone again.

10. 11.

Defendant immediately called back in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d. On or about July 12, 2005, Plaintiff received a series of telephone calls from Defendant which were increasingly harassing, abusive, and malicious in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d and 1692f.

12.

The agents of Defendant called Plaintiff and claimed to be from the legal department, which was false and misleading as Defendant does not provide legal services in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e.

13.

The agents of Defendant also threatened Plaintiff with court action, which was false and misleading as to date Plaintiff has never had any action initiated against him by Defendant in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(5).

14.

During one phone call Defendants female agent claiming to be from the legal department, called Plaintiff an idiot, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d and 1692f.

-2-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 7

15.

Defendants agent also told Plaintiff that the interest rate on the alleged US Bank account was 20 percent, which was false and misleading and in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692f.

16.

Defendants again started calling Plaintiff on or about November 21, 2005, during which Defendant ERs agent, Juanita, left a voice mail message for Plaintiff at about 11:00 a.m. and again telephoned Plaintiff at around 3:30 p.m. and wanted to know if Plaintiff was going to pay his alleged debt.

17.

Plaintiff explained that he had nothing to say to Defendants at this time and hung up the telephone.

18.

Defendants agent, Mary, called back that same evening at around 7:30 p.m. and wanted to know if Plaintiff was going to pay on the alleged debt.

19.

Plaintiff explained to Defendants agent, Mary that he had already spoken with Defendant that morning and Defendants agent immediately stated that Plaintiff had not spoken to her and proceeded to question Plaintiff about when he was going to pay on the alleged debt.

20. 21.

Plaintiff then hung up the telephone. Then on November 22, 2005, Plaintiff received another telephone call from Defendants agent, Juanita.

22.

Defendants agent told Plaintiff that she understood that Plaintiff did not want to talk to her to which Plaintiff agreed and hung up the telephone.

23.

Then again that evening Defendants agent, Mrs. Ferguson, called and wanted to offer Plaintiff a settlement.

-3-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 4 of 7

24.

Plaintiff explained to Defendants agent that it was ridiculous them calling his house several times a day after he has explained that he does not want to receive any of the phone calls.

25.

Defendants conduct in the aforementioned series of telephone calls from Defendant were harassing, abusive, and malicious in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692d and 1692f.

26.

Defendants conduct has caused Plaintiff emotional distress, out-of-pocket loss and extreme frustration. TRIAL BY JURY

27.

Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury. U.S. Const. Amend. 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq

28.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.

29.

The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the abovecited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

30.

As a result of Defendants violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff has suffered out-of-pocket expenses and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) from Defendant.

-4-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 5 of 7

COUNT II. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein. 32. Defendant intentionally interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff. 33. Defendant intentionally caused harm to Plaintiffs emotional well being by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting a debt. 34. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his solitude, seclusion, and or private concerns or affairs. 35. The intrusion by Defendants occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position. 36. 37. Defendant has harmed Plaintiff because of such invasions of privacy. As a result of such invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for: for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1) against Defendant; for an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A) against Defendant; for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant; actual damages from Defendant for the emotional distress suffered as a result of the FDCPA violations and invasions of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial; and

-5-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 6 of 7

for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.

Dated this 7th day of February, 2006.

By: s/Thomas J. Lyons, Jr. Thomas J. Lyons, Jr. Attorney I.D. #: 0249646 342 East County Road D Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Attorney for Plaintiff

-6-

CASE 0:06-cv-00519-PJS-JJG Document 1 Filed 02/08/06 Page 7 of 7

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN_______ ) I, Mark Wagener-Perkins, having first been duly sworn and upon oath, deposes and says as follows: 1. I am the Plaintiff in this civil proceeding. 2. I have read the above-entitled civil Complaint prepared by my attorneys and I believe that all of the facts contained in it are true, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry. 3. I believe that this civil Complaint is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. 4. I believe that this civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass any Defendant(s), cause unnecessary delay to any Defendant(s), or create a needless increase in the cost of litigation to any Defendant(s), named in the Complaint. 5. I have filed this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes set forth in it.

s/Mark Wagener-Perkins________________ Mark Wagener-Perkins Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31 day of January, 2006.

s/Tina Uppal ______________ Notary Public

-7-