Asset Recovery Class Action Says Debt Collection Tactics Unfair

Asset Recovery Group Inc. d/b/a Asset Recovery Group of Washington has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing it of filing debt collection lawsuits in parts of Washington that are inconvenient to the debtors they were suing.

According to the debt collection class action lawsuit, these tactics are unfair and deceptive and violate both federal and Washington state law.

Plaintiffs Natalie F. Simmons, Stephen H. Simmons, Katherine A. Rohr-Smith and Zaldy Fernandez filed the debt collection lawsuit earlier this week in Washington federal court, claiming Asset Recovery violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiffs allege that they all had debt collection lawsuits filed against them, but the lawsuits were filed in districts in which the plaintiffs did not reside, and the contracts at issue were not executed in the districts in which the lawsuits were filed.

The FDCPA class action lawsuit describes the manner in which the King County District Court system is divided. The court system is divided into three divisions: South, East and West. These divisions were allegedly created to facilitate access to the justice system.

However, Asset Recovery Group failed to file debt collection lawsuits in the appropriate division, the FDCPA class action lawsuit claims.

“Defendants unlawfully and abusively engaged in the unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice of filing debt collections lawsuits in a Division where debtor defendants neither lived nor signed the contracts on which they were being sued,” the Asset Recovery Group class action lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs assert that this conducts constitutes a violation of the FDCPA, which requires debt collectors to file debt collection lawsuits in the judicial district in which the customer signed the contract at issue, or in the district in which the consumer lived at the time of the filing.

Debtors were led to believe that they were required to defend themselves in the less convenient forum, even though Asset Recovery Group had improperly filed the debt collection lawsuits in an incorrect district, the lawsuit states.

According to the Asset Recovery class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs received a copy of the complaint and a summons that informed them that they were required to file a defense in writing at the inconvenient forum, and that if they failed to do so within 20 days, a default judgment could be entered against them.

The plaintiffs state that default judgment motions were filed against them in the inconvenient forum, but that the motions “falsely and deceptively” stated that they lived in the district in which the debt collection lawsuit was filed. Asset Recovery then attempted to collect on the judgments, the class action lawsuit alleges.

The FDCPA class action lawsuit also names as a defendant Robert S. Friedman, a Washington attorney who reportedly files debt collection cases in King County on behalf of Asset Recovery.

The plaintiffs are represented by Guy W. Beckett of Berry & Beckett PLLP, Antoinette M. Davis of Antoinette M. Davis Law PLLC, and Rob Williamson and Kim Williams of Williamson and Williams LLC.

The Asset Recovery Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit is Simmons, et al. v. Asset Recovery Group Inc. d/b/a Asset Recovery Group of Washington, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00794, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.