fbpx

Damn. Litigation Practice Group Sure Has a Lot of Lawsuits Against Them.

Litigation Practice Group just posted a court document that revealed something very informative for consumers.

According to this document, “LPG is a named defendant in ten litigation matters – and a potential defendant in the eleventh matter. Ten of the eleven pending lawsuits involve allegations arising under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679, et seq. One matter involves a state law claim under a similar state statute, the Kansas Credit Services Organization Act (“KCSOA”), K.S.A. 50-1116, et seq. Two of the eleven Actions are class actions, containing class definitions which substantially overlap.”

The cases that LPG seeks to coordinate and consolidate include (but may not be limited to)
the following:

(1) Gloria Eaton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00917-VMC (N.D. Georgia March 4, 2022); (“Eaton”);

(2) Carolyn Beech, on behalf of herself and the class members described below, v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-RHWR, (S.D. Mississippi March 17, 2022) (“Beech”);

(3) Debra Price v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC, Daniel March, Marque Carey, Randall Clark, Michael Robinson, Jayde Trinh, Howard Gutman, Case No. 3:22-cv-00707-KM (M.D. Pennsylvania May 13, 2022) (“Price”);

(4) Kenneth Topp v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00814 (W.D. Texas July 26, 2022) (“Beech”);

(5) Darcy D. Williamson, Trustee v. Litigation Practice Group PC, Case No. 22-40216, Adversary No. 22-07015 (Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas October 3, 2022);

(6) James Hammett v. Debt Resolution Direct, LLC, d/b/a Debt Advisors of America Company (involving allegations against The Litigation Practice Group. P.C.), Case No. 1:22-cv-04249-SDG (N.D. Georgia October 25, 2022) (“Hammett”);

(7) Beverly A. Graham v. The Litigation Practice Group. P.C., Case No. 2:22-cv07915-MAR (C.D. California, October 31, 2022) (“Graham”);

(8) Johnny W. Rizo v. The Litigation Practice Group. P.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-01959-DAD-DB (E.D. California, October 31, 2022) (“Rizo”);

(9) Teresa Klaus v. The Litigation Practice Group. P.C., Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-JGC (N.D. Ohio November 18, 2022);

(10) Kathlene Scarlett v. The Litigation Practice Group. P.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-04106-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio November 18, 2022); and

(11) Geneva and Myranda Sheffield v. The Litigation Practice Group. P.C., Case No. 3:22-cv-02093-JZ (N.D. Ohio November 18, 2022).

LPG goes on to say, “Ten of the eleven Actions allege violations of CROA, and the allegations are nearly identical in each case. One action alleges violations under a similar state statute. Ten of the Actions allege that LPG violated CROA when it allegedly received payment for the performance of its services before such services were fully performed. Five Actions state that LPG violated CROA when it allegedly made untrue statements and did not provide a written statement of rights. (See Price, Topp, Hammett, Rizo, and Graham). Two of the Actions allege that LPG violated CROA when it misrepresented its services. (See Price and Eaton). Five of the Actions allege LPG violated CROA when it failed to provide written disclosures and/or that it did not include certain information in such disclosures. (See Beech, Topp, Hammett, Rizo, and Graham). Four Actions allege that LPG violated CROA when the documents it provided did not include a cancellation clause. (See Beech, Topp, Hammett, and Graham). Three of the Actions allege that LPG violated CROA when it attempted to obtain a waiver of rights from the consumer. (See Topp, Rizo, and Graham). One action alleges violations under the Kansas Credit Services Organization Act (“KCSOA”), K.S.A. 50-1116, et seq. Based on these alleged violations, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. Eaton and Beech seek relief for putative nationwide class actions. Eaton seeks an ancillary class incentive award.”

See also  Am I Being Scammed by Coast Processing with Litigation Practice Group?

A big hat tip to LPG for telling us what cases are focusing on. The say:

“Plaintiffs in Beech seek certification of nationwide classes as follows:

Class A consists of all persons who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action entered into contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not cancelled within three business days, that provide for monthly payments before services are fully performed. Beech Complaint at ¶47.

Class B consists of all persons who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action entered into contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not cancelled within three business days, and who were not provided with the written statement described in 15 U.S.C. §1679c(a). Beech Complaint at ¶48.

Class C consists of all persons who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action entered into contracts with Defendant LPG, which contracts were not cancelled within three business days, and who were not provided with both (a) a conspicuous statement in bold face type, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for the consumer’s signature on the contract, which reads as follows “You may cancel this contract without any penalty or obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business day after the date on which you singed the contract. See the attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of this right” and (b) a separate notice of cancellation form. Beech Complaint at ¶49.

Plaintiffs in Eaton seek certification of nationwide classes:

Class 1 (Debt Adjustment Class): All persons who, while residing in the state of Georgia, received debt settlement or debt adjusting services from Defendant on or after July 1, 2003 and from whom Defendant accepted, directly or indirectly, any charge, fee, contribution, or combination thereof, in violation of the Georgia Debt Adjustment Act.

See also  How Do I Fight Litigation Practice Group and Daniel March?

Class 2 (CROA Class): All persons who, while residing in the state of Georgia, received credit repair services from Defendant on or after five (5) years from the filing of this Complaint through the current time.

Class 3 (FBPA Class): All persons who, while residing in the state of Georgia, received debt settlement or debt adjusting services from Defendant on or after on or after four (4) years from the filing of this Complaint through the current time and from whom Defendant accepted, directly or indirectly, any charge, fee, contribution, or combination thereof, in violation of the Georgia Debt Adjustment Act, which also constitutes a violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.

Class 4 (Money Had and Received Class): All persons who, while residing in the state of Georgia, paid money to Defendant on or after on or after four (4) years from the filing of this Complaint through the current time for Defendant’s commission of the tort of money had and received.

Class 5 (Restitution Class): All persons who, while residing in the state of Georgia, paid money to Defendant on or after on or after four (4) years from the filing of this Complaint through the current time for services promised under an illegal contract, and such persons seek restitution from Defendant.

Sub-Classes 6-10 (Elder Abuse): Within each of the five separate proposed classes exists an additional and distinct subclass for purposes of Count Six for all members over the age of 60 Eaton Complaint at ¶ 159.”

Follow Me
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me

4 thoughts on “Damn. Litigation Practice Group Sure Has a Lot of Lawsuits Against Them.”

  1. The sad part is that they will get shut down but simply open up under another name and continue this scam. Validation, as a model, does not work and is even shadier when they charge upfront fees.

    Reply

Leave a Comment