On October 24, 2011, Richard Epstein of Greenspoon Marder filed an appeal regarding Callow v. CDS CLIENT SERVICES, INC. a/k/a CDS DEBT RESOLUTION a/k/a CAPITAL DEBT SETTLEMENT, a California Corporation; MARK PENSO, individually; DAVID HENSON, individually; iVISTA ENTERPRISE INC., a/k/a ! VISTA ENTERPRISES, INC. a California Corporation, doing business under the fictitious name ZERODEBT USA; LENNY B. SPANGLER, individually; KELLI RUNDLE.
It appears the Defendant’s are trying to get this to stay in Federal Court rather than being moved to the state court in Washington State.
I’m not really going to talk about the overall case other than to say it is a claim the Defendant’s violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
What I do want to share is information contained in the appeal that is interesting about Legal Helpers Debt Resolution and the affiliate/marketer relationship.
From the appeal:
“…Defendants are contractually affiliated with Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, LLC (“Legal Helpers”), the lead defendant in the Smith Case; and (2) Plaintiff’s claim here arises from a written contract she made with Legal Helpers, not any contract she made directly with CDS.17 For reasons unstated but evidently a matter of litigation strategy – as Plaintiff’s counsel here are also Plaintiff’s counsel in the Smith Case – Plaintiff did not sue Legal Helpers in this case. But the conduct in which CDS allegedly engaged which Plaintiff seeks to enjoin here, which, in fact, CDS provided only under its contract with Legal Helpers, was conduct contractually due to Plaintiff by Legal Helpers pursuant to the contract Plaintiff signed with Legal Helpers. So, any injunctive relief entered against CDS would necessarily directly and inescapably impact Legal Helpers.”
“In the Smith Case, discovery revealed the number of Legal Helpers clients residing in Washington and the dollar volume of the services Legal Helpers provided to those clients. The clients include, like Plaintiff here, those for which Legal Helpers engaged CDS to perform certain non-legal services. That information was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel – as Plaintiff’s counsel in the Smith Case – as interrogatory answers. Those interrogatory answers, the contents and accuracy of which were not disputed either in the Smith Case or here, are the evidentiary basis for the statistical information upon which Defendants based their jurisdictional amount computation.”
“Indeed, the interrogatory answers in the Smith Case proffer that seven hundred and thirty-one (731) Washington residents retained Legal Helpers from the period of September, 2009 through July, 2011.19 As stated in the Response, during that period, Legal Helpers clients paid the Firm $2,285,259.72.”
“From the viewpoint of Defendants, the amount in controversy far exceeds $75,000.00. Because Legal Helpers and Defendants will all be directly and adversely impacted by the request injunction – their business in Washington will be destroyed – because of the application of Rule 65(d)(2)(C), CDS may justifiably cite to Legal Helpers’ past business figures to determine the economic impact of the injunction going forward. These numbers offer concrete historical data on the amount earned by Legal Helpers, an amount that averaged nearly $100 thousand per month over a twenty-three (23) month period. As such, these figures are relevant and reliably predictive of the economic impact of this injunction on Defendants, an amount that, as early as the first month following the entry of the injunction, may exceed the $75,000 threshold. – Source
Pages From Original Complaint
I can always use your help. If you have a tip or information you want to share, you can get it to me confidentially if you click here.