Collins v. New Era Lending, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-03829

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

5. Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in Lake County, Florida.
6. Defendant is a limited liability company headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

Factual Allegations

10. Defendant is a mortgage brokerage company that helps consumer with loans and refinancing.
11. Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number is (303) XXX-1717.
12. This number is a non-commercial telephone number and is not associated with any business.
13. The number is used for personal residential purposes.
14. Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Plaintiff’s telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since October 31, 2004.
15. Plaintiff has never been a customer of Defendant’s nor asked or inquired to be a customer of the Defendant’s.
16. Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendant.
17. Plaintiff never did business with Defendant.
18. Plaintiff received at least fourteen telemarketing text messages promoting mortgage refinancing products and services from Defendant between October 2025 and April
2026. 19. The messages were sent on or about October 8, 2025; October 22, 2025; October 27, 2025; November 6, 2025; November 19, 2025; December 8, 2025; January 26, 2026; January 27, 2026; February 3, 2026; February 11, 2026; February 20, 2026; February 27, 2026; March 6, 2026; March 12, 2026; March 25, 2026; April 2, 2026; April 8, 2026; April 14, 2026; April 20, 2026; and April 25, 2026. Upon information and belief, each of these messages promoted substantially similar VA mortgage refinancing products and services and was transmitted as part of the same coordinated telemarketing campaign. Each of these messages promoted substantially similar VA mortgage refinancing products and services and was transmitted as part of the same coordinated marketing campaign.
20. Screenshots of some of the text messages are provided below:
21. Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD The messages were part of a common marketing campaign promoting mortgage refinancing products and services.
22. The messages repeatedly promoted VA IRRRL and VA Streamline refinancing programs.
23. Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD The messages promoted Defendant’s VA mortgage refinance products and encouraged recipients to apply for refinancing through Defendant.
24. The messages advertised substantially similar benefits, including lower mortgage rates, lower monthly payments, skipped mortgage payments, escrow refunds, reduced closing costs, no appraisal requirements, and no income documentation requirements.
25. Plaintiff responded to one of the messages and requested information regarding the advertised refinancing program to investigate who was contacting her illegally.
26. During the communication, the sender requested Plaintiff’s email address and represented that application materials and additional information would be sent.
27. Plaintiff then received an email from Ali Habhab at alihabhab@neweralendingllc.com promoting Defendant’s VA IRRRL refinancing program.
28. The email advertised the same benefits described in the text messages, including lower rates, lower payments, up to two skipped payments, escrow refunds, no income verification, no hard credit check, and no appraisal requirements.
29. The email identified New Era Lending LLC and contained Defendant’s branding and contact information.
30. The email demonstrates that the text messages and email communications were components of the same marketing campaign promoting Defendant’s mortgage products.
31. After Plaintiff, through counsel, notified Defendant of Plaintiff’s TCPA claims and provided copies of the subject text messages, Defendant’s President, Omar Said, responded by email on May 8, 2026.
32. In that email, Omar Said acknowledged that Plaintiff’s telephone number had been associated in Defendant’s records with a lead identified as “Amina Haywood.”
33. Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Specifically, Omar Said stated: “We received this phone number linked to a different client named Amina Haywood. The number did not link to Deborah on our end. Something happened with the data and tech so the system did not catch it. We have proof of it.”
34. Defendant’s admission confirms that the recurring references to “Amina” contained throughout the subject text messages originated from information maintained within Defendant’s own lead management and marketing databases, rather than from Plaintiff.
35. Defendant further admitted that Plaintiff’s telephone number was present in Defendant’s systems and that a data or technology error caused Defendant’s systems to associate Plaintiff’s telephone number with the lead identified as Amina Haywood.
36. Defendant never denied that the messages originated from Defendant’s marketing campaign.
37. Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or permission to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisement or marketing text messages to telephone number (303) XXX-XXXX.
38. Plaintiff did not request information or promotional materials from Defendant.
39. Plaintiff never provided her telephone number to Defendant.
40. Plaintiff did not sign up for or request text messages from Defendant.
41. Despite this Plaintiff received at least eight telemarketing text messages from Defendant.
42. Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance.
43. Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Upon information and good-faith belief, Defendant knew, or should have known, that telephone number (303) XXX-XXXX was registered with the National Do Not Call Registry on and after October 31, 2004. V.

Remedies Sought

• Determining that this action is a proper class action;
• Designating Plaintiff as a class representative of the class under Federal Rule of
• Designating Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
• Adjudging and declaring that Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5);
• Enjoining Defendant from continuing its violative behavior, including continuing to deliver, or causing to be delivered, solicitation text messages to telephone numbers registered with the DNC Registry for at least thirty days;
• Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the class damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B);
• Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the class treble damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(C);
• Awarding Plaintiff and the class reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
• Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the class any pre-judgment and postjudgment interest as may be allowed under the law; and
• Awarding such other and further relief as 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 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibit?

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) prohibits auto-dialed calls, pre-recorded messages, and unsolicited text messages to cell phones without prior express written consent. It also protects numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Violations carry statutory damages of $500 per call, tripled to $1,500 for willful violations.

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.