Taylor v. Chebat, Case No. 8:26-cv-00734

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

The Parties

11. Florida law prohibits usury and caps interest rates at 18% annually. Interest rates that exceed 18% are considered usurious per § 687.071(1), Fla. Stat., and rates that exceed 25% are considered criminally usurious per § 687.071(2), Fla. Stat.
12. Loans made with interest rates that are usurious under Florida Statutes are void ab initio under Florida law.
13. Unsurprisingly, the rate of default on short-term loans requiring five times the amount borrowed be repaid is very high. Thus, the sale of non-performing, charged-off loan balances by Plain Green is a key source of revenue.
14. Direct Debt frequently purchases charged off balances from Plain Green at a steep discount.
15. Direct Debt also buys debt from sources including 605 Lending and The Loansmith, two other online lenders which make short-term “payday” loans to consumers at 700% interest rates and higher.
16. Direct Debt then hires various debt collection agencies to collect the balance.
17. Direct Debt knew many of the debt collection agencies it places Plain Green debts for collection with, will resort to dubious and unlawful collection methods, including frequently implying legal action will be filed against the nonpaying consumer unless payment is made immediately.
18. Direct Debt knew every debt collection agency it places Plain Green debts for collection with (and 605 Lending, The Loansmith, etc.) will engage in collection activity against the alleged debtors, irrespective of if the debts are enforceable or not. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. Subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s federal claims arises under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
20. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
21. This Court may also exercise diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), as the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and a member of a class of the plaintiffs is a citizen of a different state from any Defendant.
22. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred within Florida, including in this District and Division. PARTIES Mr. Taylor
23. Mr. Taylor is a natural person who at all times relevant has resided in Haines City, Polk County, Florida.
24. Mr. Taylor is a Consumer as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3), the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c), and the FCCPA, § 559.55(8), Fla. Stat. Chebat
25. Chebat is a natural person, the founder, and CEO of Direct Debt, and has operated the business since its inception in 2011.
26. Chebat’s online resume on LinkedIn states he “lead the purchase and management of over $1B(illion) in assets” and “optimized a specialty market in subprime assets.”
27. On information and belief, Chebat manages the day-to-day operations of Direct Debt and is ultimately responsible for its collection policies and practices.
28. On information and belief, Chebat has the final say, as founder and CEO, as to hiring and firing of employees.
29. Chebat, as founder and CEO, has the ability to examine or review any collection attempts or communications made by the company he leads.
30. Chebat, to the extend he has delegate authority over collection operations to other employees, has power and control over those managerial employees.
31. Chebat has the ability to review and respond to complaints (legal or otherwise) against his company regarding collection activity and compliance.
32. Chebat may be served at Direct Debt’s offices at 1800 Elmwood Ave Buffalo, NY 14207 or his home address, 55 Hallam Rd, Buffalo, NY 14216. Direct Debt
33. Debt Direct is a New York limited liability company with a principal address of 1800 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14207.
34. Debt Direct is registered to conduct business in the State of Florida, where its Registered Agent is Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 801 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, FL 33408.
35. Debt Direct is licensed as a Consumer Collection Agency (“CCA”) by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, holding license number CCA9904694. Forest Hill
36. Forest Hill is a New York limited liability company with a principal business address of 1 Seneca Street, Suite 2900, Buffalo, NY 14203.
37. Forest Hill is registered to conduct business in the State of Florida, where its Registered Agent is Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 801 US Hwy 1, North Palm Beach, FL 33408. Younger
38. Younger is a natural person who is the Director and President of Forest Hill.
39. On information and belief, Younger manages the day-to-day operations of Forest Hill and is responsible for its collection policies and practices.
40. Younger is ultimately responsible for the company he manages, including hiring and firing of any employees.
41. Younger has the ability to review and change any collection policies and procedures at Forest Hill.
42. Younger has the ability to review and respond to any complaints, legal or otherwise, made against Forest Hill.
43. Younger, to the extent he has delegated management and control to other employees at Forest Hill, retains ultimate control of the company’s operations due to his ability to terminate those employees at his discretion.
44. Younger has been employed or worked as a debt collector since at least 2003, having obtained a license from the State of Minnesota to act as a debt collector on October 2, 2003.
45. Younger may be served at Forest Hill’s offices at 53840 E. Robinson Rd. Suite 153, Amherst, NY 14228 or his home address, 801 Campbell Blvd Amherst, NY
14228. Unknown Entities 1-10
46. Unknown Entities 1-10 are debt collection agencies which Direct Debt placed Plain Green loans for collection with. Direct Debt utilizes myriad different agencies to collect debts it purchases. Once Plaintiff learns the identities of these other collection agencies, he will amend his complaint. Defendants Are ‘Debt Collectors’
47. The Defendants are each Debt Collectors within the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), and the FCCPA, § 559.55(7), Fla. Stat., in that they use instrumentalities of commerce, including postal mail, telephone, the internet, and/or email, interstate and within the State of Florida, for their business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, and/or they regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed to another.

Factual Allegations

48. Mr. Taylor received a short-term, $700 loan from Plain Green in April 2024 which carried a 580.28% interest rate (the “Loan”).
49. Mr. Taylor used the proceeds from the Loan for consumer goods and services for personal and/or family use.
50. The Loan therefore meets the definitions of Debt under the FDCPA and the FCCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) and § 559.55(6), Fla. Stat., respectively.
51. Mr. Taylor repaid a considerable amount directly to Plain Green.
52. The majority of his payments were applied to the usurious interest of the Loan.
53. At some point prior to October 2025, Plain Green assigned the charged- off, $1,952.16 alleged remaining balance to Direct Debt.
54. Alternatively, Plain Green assigned it to some other party who then later assigned it to Direct Debt. Illegal Loan Took Place in Florida; The Loan is Subject to Florida Law, Under Which it is Void
55. Plain Green claims to be operated by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation in Box Elder, Montana (“Chippewa Tribe” or the “Tribe”).
56. Plain Green claims loans are made “on” the Tribe’s reservation in Montana and are subject to its own Tribal law.
57. However, consumers almost always acquire Plain Green loans without leaving their own home.
58. Thus, the final act of any such loan takes place in the consumer’s home state, or wherever else the consumer is located when signing.
59. Mr. Taylor has never set foot on tribal land or visited the State of Montana.
60. Mr. Taylor took out the Loan from his home in Polk County, Florida, accessed the PlainGreen.com lending platform from his home in Polk County, Florida, signed all relevant documents from his home in Polk County, Florida, received correspondence from Plain Green at his home in Polk County, Florida, and had money wired into, and out of, his bank account he maintained in Polk County, Florida, by Plain Green or its service providers.
61. The final step required of Mr. Taylor was to click a box indicating he accepted the terms and conditions presented by Plain Green.
62. This final step was performed by Mr. Taylor in Florida.
63. “Federal courts applying Florida law have held that under lex loci contractus, clicking accept is the last act needed” to confirm similar contracts, and as such, an online contract finalized in Florida is subject to Florida law. Garn v S. Fla. Stadium LLC, No. 24-25087-CV, 2025 WL 1279071, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2025).
64. The Loan was thus governed by the laws of Florida.
65. Plain Green, through the application and underwriting process, knew that the Plaintiff resided in Polk County, Florida.
66. Plain Green even obtained data reports on the Plaintiff as part of the underwriting process.
67. These data reports indicated that the Plaintiff resided in Polk County, Florida.
68. At least some of these data reports were from consumer reporting agencies as defined under the FCRA.
69. § 687.071(2), Fla. Stat., renders loans with annual interest rates greater than 25% as criminally usurious, while § 687.071(3), Fla. Stat., renders loans made with annual interest rates greater than 45% a third-degree felony.
70. § 687.071(7), Fla. Stat., renders any criminally usurious loan void and unenforceable. See also § 516.02(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (rendering debts unenforceable that originated from usurious contracts).
71. Long-standing public policy in Florida confirms the alleged debt is unenforceable. Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert, 169 So. 750, 758-59 (Fla. 1935) (criminally usurious loans are “void as against the public policy of the state as established by its Legislature.”)
72. Any person who willfully makes a criminally usurious loan, in addition to subjecting themselves to criminal sanctions, forfeits the right to collect payment for the loan.
73. When a lender commits criminal usury, even the right to recover principal is prohibited. Rollins v. Odom, 519 So. 2d 652, 656 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
74. The purpose of the usury statutes is to protect the needy borrower by penalizing the unconscionable money lender. Stubblefield v. Dunlap, 148 Fla. 401, 4 So.2d 519 (1941); see also Pushee v. Johnson, 123 Fla. 305, 166 So. 847 (1936); River Hills, Inc. v. Edwards, 190 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
75. Florida has taken usury one step further in the consumer loan context through the passing of the Consumer Finance Act, § 516, Fla. Stat. (the “Act”).
76. The Act requires licensure and state oversight for lenders issuing loans to Florida consumers in the amount of $25,000 or less, such as the Loan made to Mr. Taylor. § 516.02(1), Fla. Stat.
77. The Act further restricts the interest and fees which may be charged by a licensed consumer finance company.
78. § 516.02(c), Fla. Stat., indicates that any loan which fails to comply with the Act is unenforceable in Florida even if valid wherever made.
79. Thus, Florida has made clear that in order to enforce a consumer loan against a Florida resident, a lender must be licensed in Florida and comply with the Consumer Finance Act.
80. Mr. Taylor’s Loan charged an annual interest rate of 580.23%, more than 44 times the rate permitted by the Act and 23 times Florida’s criminal usury rate.
81. Plain Green is not licensed as a Consumer Finance Company in Florida.
82. Accordingly, the Loan is void and unenforceable in its entirety against Mr. Taylor, regardless of whether it was valid under the law of the Tribe, or wherever else it may have been made.
83. Further, because the Loan was subject to interest at more than double Florida’s enforceable rate, the Loan constitutes an Unlawful Debt as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6) and § 772.102(2), Fla. Stat.
84. As the Loan was made in violation of § 687, Fla. Stat., the Loan amounts to Criminal Activity per § 772.102(1)(a)(11), Fla. Stat. Direct Debt Attempts to Collect Unlawful Debt
85. At some point prior to October 2025, Direct Debt became the assignee of Mr. Taylor’s purported $1,952.16 “debt.”
86. Direct Debt then placed the debt for collection with Forest Hill directly.
87. Alternatively, Direct Debt placed the debt or with another company who then subcontracted with Forest Hill.
88. On October 29, 2025, Forest Hill obtained Mr. Taylor’s credit report from Experian Information Solutions (“Experian”), a nationwide credit reporting agency (“CRA”).
89. Experian recorded a record of the inquiry as such:
90. Forest Hill’s request for Mr. Taylor’s credit report was a communication in connection with the collection of a debt and sought information about Mr. Taylor.
91. The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d)(1), defines a consumer report as: “any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living…” (Emphasis added).
92. Thus, the report Forest Hill obtained from Experian is a “consumer report” as defined by the FCRA.
93. The FCRA at 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f) prohibits any person from using a credit report for any purpose other than the stated purpose when requesting it from a CRA.
94. While the FCRA at § 1681b(a)(3)(A) allows for a person to obtain a credit report in connection with the “collection of an account” from a consumer, such certification as permissible purpose requires there a debt to be owed and collectable.
95. Here, no debt existed as the entire loan was void ab initio due to the application of a triple-digit interest rate.
96. As such, Forest Hill had no permissible purpose to obtain Mr. Taylor’s credit report.
97. By obtaining Mr. Taylor’s credit report without permissible purpose, Forest Hill violated the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b.
98. A key reason for the implementation of the FCRA by Congress was to protect consumer privacy; see 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4) (“It is in the public interest to … protect consumer privacy.”)
99. By obtaining Mr. Taylor’s legally protected, personal, and confidential information without permissible purpose, Forest Hill invaded Mr. Taylor’s privacy.
100. Mr. Taylor must also now contend with the fact a debt collector engaged in the collection of unlawful debts has his legally protected, confidential personal information, account numbers, balances, etc.
101. Forest Hill made other collection communications to Mr. Taylor, demanding payment of the Loan, including a collection email and demand made over the phone to him both on December 15, 2025.
102. Forest Hill also sent Mr. Taylor several e-mails attempting to collect the Plain Green Loan.
103. The Defendants’ phone calls, e-mails, and voicemail messages to Mr. Taylor were Communications as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2) and § 559.55(2), Fla. Stat.
104. The communications sought to collect a balance related to a null, void, and usurious debt.
105. At no point did Forest Hill disclose that the Plaintiff had no obligation to repay the loan due to its voided nature.
106. In its communications with Mr. Taylor, Forest Hill implied, falsely, that they represented Plain Green.
107. Forest Hill made statements such as “My client (Plain Green) supported you when you were in need of money. Now they expect their money back.”
108. Forest Hill also made implied threats of litigation in their communications attempting to collect the Plain Green debt.
109. Forest Hill stated that the Plain Green Loan was enforceable against Mr. Taylor and sought to collect it.
110. Forest Hill was acting, at all times relevant, as Direct Debt’s agent. Younger & Chebat Are Personally Liable Under FCCPA, FDCPA
111. A shareholder, owner, officer, member, manager, employee or agent of a corporate debt collector can be held liable for violating the FDCPA without piercing the corporate veil.
112. Younger and Chebat, due to their roles at their respective companies, are personally liable under the statutes. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Primary Grp., Inc., No. 1613532 (11th Cir. Sep. 29, 2017); Schmidt v. Synergentic Commc’ns, Inc., No. 214-CV-539FTM-29, 2015 WL 248635, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2015). Pennsylvania v. Think Fin., Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 14-cv-7139, at *57 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2016); Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012).
113. Both Younger and Chebat are intricately involved in the operations of their companies, and as such have personal liability to Mr. Taylor and other Florida consumers under the FDCPA and FCCPA.
114. Chebat implemented and/or authorized the purchase of a portfolio of debts from Plain Green, knowing full well the underlying interest rates rendered the loans unlawful debts in Florida, and in many other states as well.
115. Chebat touts his expertise in asset management and purchasing, noting in his LinkedIn profile he has lead the “purchase and management” of over $1 Billion in assets.1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmychebat/, accessed December 17, 2025
116. Chebat has elected to purchase and collect numerous unlawful debts, including Simple Fast Loans (200% interest and higher), 605 Lending (700% interest and higher), The Loansmith (700% interest and higher), and many others.
117. This shows the intentionality of the Defendant’s conduct.
118. Younger, in turn, has accepted placements of clearly usurious debts from Direct Debt on many occasions. As but one example, Forest Hill is alleged to have collected debt originated by 605 Lending. Allison Sharits vs. Dustin Dernier, Forest Hill Account Management Inc., et. al, case 1:25-cv-11944, N.D. Ill., September 30, 2025. Defendants Constitute an Enterprise under CRCPA
119. The CRCPA defines an “enterprise” as “any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other legal entity, or any unchartered union, association, or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. § 772.102(3) Fla. Stat.
120. The Defendants, along with Plain Green and other persons, are an association in fact enterprise who are associated together for the common purpose of making, collecting, and profiting off illegal loans.
121. Each entity serves a distinct role: Plain Green (and its various service providers) make loans online, Direct Debt purchases the Loans once they are charged off, and Forest Hill communicates directly with the consumer to try and collect the loans.
122. Courts throughout the nation have held that even the provision of ordinary and legal services (e.g., the provision of debt collection services) can create liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. (“RICO”), if the actors are aware of the greater scheme afoot. See, e.g. Smith v. Berg, 247 F. 3d 532, 537 (3d Cir. 2001) (relying on Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (holding that a court may not dismiss a RICO claim against an alleged conspirator simply because the defendant characterizes itself as having merely provided ordinary services, if there are plausible allegations that those services were provided with an awareness of the broader scheme being furthered).
123. Defendants have committed far more than two predicate acts. See, e.g., Sharits, Id., Anthony Milam vs. Direct Debt Portfolio Management, LLC, case 8:23-cv00295, M.D. Fla., Feb. 10, 2023 (collection of 500% APR Plain Green Loan). Additionally, the Defendants agreed to the overall objective of the conspiracy.
124. Defendants knowingly collaborated together for the common purpose of collecting unlawful debts.
125. Mr. Taylor has hired the aforementioned law firm to represent him in this matter and has assigned his right to fees and costs to such firm.

Remedies Sought

• Certification for this matter to proceed as a class action;
• Treble all amounts paid by Plaintiff and the putative class members towards their Plain Green loans, pursuant to § 772.104, Fla. Stat.
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
• Such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
• Certification for this matter to proceed as a class action;
• Treble all amounts paid by Plaintiff and the putative class members towards their Plain Green loans, pursuant to § 772.104, Fla. Stat.
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
• Such other and further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Defendant been found liable in this case?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations made by Plaintiff. Defendant has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. A finding of liability requires a court proceeding where evidence is presented and evaluated by a judge or jury.

What does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibit?

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) prohibits third-party debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices. It requires collectors to send a debt validation notice and prohibits harassment, false representations, and unfair practices. Statutory damages can reach $1,000 per lawsuit plus actual damages and attorney fees.

What does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) require?

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) regulates how consumer reporting agencies collect and use credit information. It gives consumers the right to access and dispute their credit reports. Willful violations carry statutory damages of $100–$1,000 plus actual damages and attorney fees; negligent violations allow only actual damages.

What is the current status of this case?

This case was recently filed. See the CourtListener docket linked at the bottom of this page for the complete filing record. This page is updated automatically when new documents are filed.

Where can I read the full complaint against Defendant?

The full complaint is publicly available on CourtListener. The Facts as Alleged section above reproduces the complaint’s factual allegations verbatim. The complete case record, including all filings, is available through the docket link at the bottom of this page.

Source: CourtListener. Information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.