We Defend You Against
Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc.
(Formerly Collins Financial Services, Inc.)
The Langel firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc., formerly known as Collins Financial Services, Inc. In appropriate cases, we will also sue Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.
As of February 2013, Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. has filed at least 87 cases in Queens County. As of February 2013, Collins Financial Services, Inc. had filed at least 888 cases in Queens County alone. Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. is mainly represented by Malen & Associates, P.C., Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C., Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C., Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C., and Woods, Oviatt, Gilman, LLP.
Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. purchases defaulted consumer debt to collect and sue on them.
New York Civil Court (Richmond County) Vacates Collins Financial Services' Default Judgment Against Consumer Defendant
In Collins Financial Services, Inc. vs. Vigilante (Civ. Ct. Richmond County 2011), the Civil Court of Richmond County, New York, dealt a significant blow to debt collector Collins Financial Services, Inc., and other similar institutions. Collins Financial Services, Inc. brought suit against a consumer defendant, alleging that she failed to pay charges on an account that had been assigned to Collins Financial. Because the defendant did not appear in court, a default judgment was entered against her.
Collins Financial initially, and unsuccessfully, sought to assign the default judgment against the defendant to Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. However, Collins Financial's affidavit of facts came from someone without personal knowledge of the facts and was based only upon information. It did not state when the contract was made, or indicate the last date of payment. The court found that Collins Financial failed to provide a notice of assignment, as well. Without the notice of assignment, a debtor would not know which creditor he must serve with legal papers. The court thus rejected the assignment of judgment because there was insufficient documentation provided to the court.
Further, this court stated it would "no longer tolerate a system of entering [judgments] without requiring substantially greater documentation from plaintiffs claiming the amount due and owing is a 'sum certain.'" The court set forth specific guidelines concerning the information to be included in every affidavit of facts in order to constitute requisite proof on default judgments or judgments after inquest. Because Collins Financial did not provide any proof of how the amount due and owing was calculated, the court found Collins Financial was not entitled to a default judgment against the consumer.
Consumer Plaintiff Alleges FDCPA Violations Against Collins Financial Services, Inc. for a Previously Settled Debt
The district court in Fetters vs. Paragon Way, Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2010) denied Collins Financial Services, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The consumer plaintiff allegedly owed money on an account assigned to Collins Financial. Collins Financial offered to settle the debt with the Plaintiff, and upon its receipt of the payment, stated that it would close and settle the debt. However, the account was not listed as closed until the complaint in the instant action was filed. The consumer's account was reported to the credit bureaus as an open collection account.
Paragon Way, Inc. acquired the debt from Collins Financial after Collins failed to indicate that the debt was satisfied, and tried to collect on the debt. The consumer alleged that both defendants violated the FDCPA when Collins listed the settled debt as an open debt and when Paragon threatened to take action in attempting to collect the debt.
In its motion for judgment based on its pleadings, defendants Collins Financial and Paragon Way argued that the FDCPA could not apply where a debt has already been settled and closed. The court, however, held that the FDCPA would apply in this situation, as the statute was intended to protect consumers from harassment – even after payment is made on alleged debts. Because the defendants continued to try, albeit erroneously, collecting on the debt, the FDCPA's remedial provisions were triggered. Collins and Paragon thus failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
District Court Grants Class Certification in Suit Against Collins Financial Services, Inc. for Alleged FDCPA Violations
In Tourgeman vs. Collins Financial Services, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2012), the district court denied Collins Financial Services, Inc.'s motion to reconsider its previously denied motion to dismiss the consumer's complaint. The court then certified an FDCPA class against Collins Financial.
The plaintiff in this case filed action against Collins Financial and its various entities for violations of the FDCPA and California state statute, due to the defendants' efforts to collect the balance on a computer the plaintiff purchased. Collins Financial purchased a portfolio through the financer of the computer, and sent letters to individuals in the portfolio seeking to collect on debts. The plaintiff never received a letter from Collins Financial, but was served with a lawsuit, which was dismissed because he had already paid the debt.
Collins Financial argued that the lower court erred in finding the plaintiff could maintain a claim against defendants because the plaintiff never received a letter from Collins Financial, and therefore never suffered an "injury in fact." However, the district court found that Collins Financial did not present sufficient grounds for reconsideration. The FDCPA's primary focus is on debt collector's conduct, and not on whether a consumer suffers actual damages.
The court further found that the plaintiff provided enough evidence to satisfy the "numerosity" prong of class certification in regard to the FDCPA class against Collins Financial. As this is a relatively low hurdle to pass, the court found it could reasonably infer that a significant number of individuals were sent false letters. Because the remaining elements of class certification were previously met, the court granted the certification of the FDCPA class against Collins Financial.
Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. Biographical Information
Precision Recovery Analytics, Inc. is a foreign business corporation (incorporated in Texas) and is principally located at 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Building 1, Suite 100, Austin, Texas, 78735. It is licensed (#1267489) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.