Threatening calls
Complaint
Iline
Country: United States
They call me at all hours of the day. I am on a maternity leave and they have been calling my office every day. They accuse my coworkers in lying and covering for me because they say that I am on leave. I tried to talk to them but they are threatening me with police and say they will take my vehicle.
Comments
Please let me know about any lawsuits
Thanks
Heidi Oubre
Tammy
rabideau.tammy@yahoo.com
of this situation. For them to be so low down is beyond me I Promise myself and any one who'll listen NOT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
called my neighbors telling them that they need to get in touch with
my husband and myself, said that I used them as a ref,(like hell I did)
I would love to see these people in court.my e-mail swood3810@charter.net
I do not have a loan with them but my son does and they are calling me
and my neighbors telling them they are looking for me.
Greg found himself at odds with CPS’s internal debt collection practices, which he felt were not appropriate. Attorney Barry Mills and I filed suit against CPS, and others, on November 17, 2004, in Riverside, Case No. INC 047177. Plaintiff alleged violations of California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq.); violations of California’s Unlawful Competition Law, (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.); and various torts.
Sometime thereafter, CPS cross-claimed against both Greg and his wife Bobbie for the alleged deficiency balance on the Isuzu. A careful examination of the notice used by CPS – to advise the Geg and his wife as consumers of their right to reinstate or redeem a repossessed vehicle under California’s Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act ( “Rees-Levering”), California Civil Code §§ 2981 et seq. – left Barry Mills and I as counsel for the Greg and Bobbie convinced that the notice was defective; and therefore, no deficiency was in fact owed to CPS at all.
After further consideration, Barry Mills and I agreed that it was appropriate to proceed with a cross-claim as a class action with Bobbie as Class Rep since the law supported the action, and the notice was essentially a form notice and had been distributed to any number of consumers. CPS denied any wrong doing, and there was a genuine difference of opinion as to how the law should be applied in the notice to consumers. Nonetheless, CPS's own in-house counsel, Mike Lavin, was wise enought to realize a settlement was most just for all concerned, rather than costly litigation. Barry and I acknowledged CPS's arguments as a valid legal point of view as well, we just disagreed. However, we agreed completely with CPS's counsel that a settlement was more appropriate than further litigation. So, CPS was able to reach a tentative settlement of the Class Member's claims with us early in the case due to the efforts of all counsel.
The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on September 29, 2005. The total monetary value of the settlement to Class Members (312 consumers) was approximately $3,699,000. Some of the benefits of this settlement cannot be accurately quantified, but are clearly of significant value to each Class Member. The Court granted final approval on December 9, 2005. The settlement provided that CPS will do the following:
1. For Settlement Class Members who made payment to CPS after receiving a Repossession Notice Letter: (1) upon receipt of a valid Notice of Claim, CPS will refund all money that the Settlement Class Member paid to CPS after the sale of the repossessed vehicle; (2) waive any alleged deficiency balance owing by the Class Member; and (3) agree not to pursue further collection of the installment sales contract or assign any of its rights in the contract. The total monetary value of the refunds to the Settlement Class is estimated to be $66,000, on a claims made basis.
2. For Settlement Class Members who did not make a payment to CPS after sale of the vehicle serving as security for the Contract: CPS will (1) waive any alleged deficiency balance owing by the Class Member; and (2) agree not to pursue further collection of the installment sales contract or assign any of its rights in the contract. The total monetary value of the alleged deficiency balances to the Settlement Class is estimated to be $3,630,000.
3. For all Settlement Class Members: CPS will request that the Credit Bureaus delete the entire CPS tradeline relating to the Settlement Class Members’ derogatory credit performance, and alleged derogatory performance, from each and every Class Member’s credit report, including all reference to the original repossession. The total monetary value of credit report relief to the Settlement Class is difficult to estimate, but is invaluable, and possibly the most significant benefit for many Class Members.
The reaction of Class Members to the proposed settlement was ecstatic disbelief, especially about the credit report benefit. Class Members called Barry Mills and me asking that we personally thank Bobbie for her willingness to stand up for the class.
I am convinced that settlement of this class action turned out to be a win-win for all parties. There was no need to point the finger constantly and decide who was wrong. Counsel for CPS, in-house counsel Michael Lavin, and Jeff Seewald of McGlinchey Stafford, never ceased to amaze me or Barry Mills with their professionalism and common sense. They were cooperation itself, and we all worked together to produce an acceptable solution for all parties. One positive result of this win-win procedure for CPS was that it got Class Counsel to vet changes to its Rees-Levering notice, that ultimately received the imprimatur of the court in the final settlement documents and orders of the case.
Hopefully, other defense counsel will learn from Mike and Jeff's example. This is how litigation should be conducted, where there is justice done for everyone.