We Defend You Against

LR Credit, LLC

The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York collection lawsuits brought by the following LR Credit entities:

  • LR Credit, LLC
  • LR Credit 1, LLC
  • LR Credit 2, LLC
  • LR Credit 3, LLC
  • LR Credit 4, LLC
  • LR Credit 5, LLC
  • LR Credit 6, LLC
  • LR Credit 7, LLC
  • LR Credit 8, LLC
  • LR Credit 9, LLC
  • LR Credit 10, LLC
  • LR Credit 11, LLC
  • LR Credit 12, LLC
  • LR Credit 13, LLC
  • LR Credit 14, LLC
  • LR Credit 15, LLC
  • LR Credit 16, LLC
  • LR Credit 17, LLC
  • LR Credit 18, LLC
  • LR Credit 19, LLC
  • LR Credit 20, LLC
  • LR Credit 21, LLC
  • LR Credit 22, LLC
  • LR Credit 23, LLC

The entities were active, registered companies and are licensed to collect debts in New York City. These entities are debt buyers initially represented by the law firm of Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, which is now defunct. Many of these LR Credit cases were impacted by the Sykes v. Mel Harris sewer-service case. Contact us right away if you're being pursued for an LR Credit judgment.

In addition to defending credit card lawsuits brought by these LR Credit entities, we may also take action against LR Credit and/or Mel S. Harris for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and New York's deceptive acts and practices statute (GBL § 349).

STATE-COURT CASES

  • The Langel Firm Overturns $38K Garnishment by LR Credit 4, LLC. See the blog here.
  • After making voluntary payments for 3 years to LR Credit 17, LLC pursuant to a default judgment, our client hired us to attack the judgment based on bad-service grounds. We successfully vacated that judgment and compelled LR Credit and Mel S. Harris to return all of his money. The court sided with our position and held that personal jurisdiction is a "threshold issue" notwithstanding Mel Harris' claim that our client's payments estopped him from raising a jurisdictional defense. The court denied LR Credit and Mel Harris' motion to reargue this point. LR Credit 17, LLC v. M.K, (Civil Court, New York 2011).
  • LR Credit 22, LLC was sanctioned $1,000 plus attorneys' fees and costs for its bad-faith refusal to honor consumer's claim of exemptions. LR Credit 22, LLC v. Egglston, 37 Misc.3d 653, City Court, City of Jamestown (Aug. 2012).
  • LR Credit 22, LLC had sued our client at his ex-wife's Patchougue address where he had never lived. Consequently, he suffered a default judgment and resultant bank restraint. Exchanging an exemption claim form with evidence disproving service, LR Credit and Mel S. Harris quickly agreed to release his bank account, vacate the judgment, and discontinue the action against him. We argued that a venue violation exposed them to countersuit. LR Credit 22, LLC v. T.A., 15740/11 (Supreme Court, Suffolk County).
  • In 2007, LR Credit 14, LLC had sued our client at his mother's address where he had not lived at in over 20 years. Consequently, he suffered a bank restraint in 2011 while residing in California. He hired us to immediately stop any levies to his bank account while attacking the judgment. We filed an Order to Show Cause attaching tax returns, pay stubs, and bills disproving service. LR Credit and Mel Harris agreed to release his bank account, vacate the $10,996 judgment, and discontinue the action with prejudice. LR Credit 14, LLC v. D.B., 138875/07 (Civil Court, Queens County).
  • LR Credit 10, LLC sued our client, a Maryland resident, in New York County Civil Court. She never lived in New York State. Attaching federal tax returns, Maryland state tax returns, a W-2, and a lease to our Order to Show Cause, LR Credit and Mel Harris quickly agreed to release her bank account, vacate the judgment discontinue the lawsuit. LR Credit 10, LLC v. M.A., 47482/06, (Civil Court, New York County).

FEDERAL-COURT CASES

We brought a federal action against attorneys for LR Credit, 22, LLC -- Mel S. Harris & Associates -- for its post-settlement letter that contained several misrepresentations. Despite being current on her settlement, the letter stated that her account was "significantly past due." The letter falsely asserted that she is a "homeowner" and that she could suffer a lien against it. The letter falsely asserted accruing interest when the debt had been settled without accruing interest. D.K. v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, 12-06754 (Southern District, New York).

In a case alleging that our client was sued twice for the same time-barred debt, we sued Mel S. Harris & Associates for bringing those action on behalf of LR Credit, LLC. R.L. v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, 12, 6569 (Southern District, New York).

A case captioned Bowens v. LR Credit 10, LLC, 07-civ-459, in the Western District of New York was actually decided against the consumer, two core issues in this heavily litigated case: 1) Can process servers be subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? and 2) Can the attorneys who engage them be vicariously liable (responsible) for their conduct?

The court answered yes to both questions, finding that:

  1. The act of perjuring an affidavit of service removes the general FDCPA exemption applicable to process servers; and
  2. Lawyers can be held responsible for process servers if they knew the affidavit(s) of service were highly likely to be false.

Though Mr. Bowens did not identify which specific provisions of the FDCPA were violated, the court inferred that he alleged the judicial interpretation that the "falsification of an affidavit of service violates the FDCPA." (See Coble v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 11 civ 1037, S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2011).

Another important holding of this case (citing the NY appellate division): "New York law supports a claim of abuse of process where defendants fraudulently served process on a debtor to obtain a default judgment." See Phillipe v. American Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 174 A.D.2d 470, 571 N.Y.S.2d 711 N.Y.App. Div.1991).

Contact The Langel Firm at (888) 271-7109 for defense in your collection lawsuit.

Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.