Quick et al. v EduCap, HSBC Bank and Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A. (D.D.C.)
Consumer class action for lawsuits filed by EduCap to collect defaulted private student loans under its Loan to Learn (“L2L”) program. Plaintiffs assert class claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia Debt Collection Law, and abuse of process.
Plaintiffs allege that EduCap filed thousands of unlawful debt collection lawsuits--claiming to the loans were owned to them--to collect defaulted L2L loans when EduCap never had any right, title or interest to those loans. Plaintiffs allege that L2L loans were originated by HSBC, but sold and securitized under the terms of the Student Loan Participation & Sale Agreement between EduCap and HSBC.
Plaintiffs also allege that EduCap manufactured thousands of false affidavits to support their lawsuits by claiming that the promissory notes were between EduCap and the borrower when the notes were between HSBC and the borrowers. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that EduCap’s nationwide network of debt collection attorneys obtained unlawful judgments or settlements from unwitting consumers that included unauthorized contingency-based collection or attorney’s fees when the promissory notes only authorized recovery of the actual costs of collection.
Griffith v EduCap, HSBC Bank and Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A. (D.D.C.)
Affirmative claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia Debt Collection law, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Weinstock filed a debt collection suit on behalf of EduCap to recover a defaulted private student loan originated by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. The caption of Weinstock's complaint falsely states "EduCap, Inc. on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association" when EduCap was never suing on behalf of HSBC. Attached to Weinstock's complaint is an affidavit from a debt collector at EduCap who falsely stated under oath that Griffith "entered into a promissory note with EduCap" when the promissory note was expressly between Griffith and HSBC, not EduCap. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EduCap, that holding was reversed by the D.C. Court of Appeals which held that EduCap never had standing "to sue to enforce the note" and that "EduCap has never contended that HSBC was a party to the suit." After more than two years of pretending to be the real party in interest, Weinstock substituted HSBC for EduCap as the purported plaintiff. But after three years of litigation, and facing proof that HSBC and EduCap securitize all Loan to Learn loans through the L2L Education Trust 2006-1, HSBC dismissed the underlying debt collection case with prejudice resulting in more than $25,000 in student loan debt being extinguished. Griffith's affirmative claims are pending in federal court.
Crescent Bank & Trust v Jones-Bey (D.C. Superior Ct.)
Counterclaims under Maryland and District of Columbia law for refusing to honor the terms of a gap insurance policy purchased at a car dealership. Jones-Bey purchased a used 2010 Chevrolet Cobalt from Enterprise Car Sales in Lanham, Maryland—financing the purchase with Enterprise’s form Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RIC”). The total price of the vehicle included a $595 charge for a 60-month “Optional Gap Contract” promising that “[i]n the event of a Constructive Total Loss to the Covered Vehicle, the GAP Amount will be waived ….” Enterprise's car salesman also promised Jones-Bey that the gap insurance would “pay off everything” in the event of a total loss.
The vehicle was later totaled in an accident while being driven by Jones-Bey’s husband. Jones-Bey’s primary liability insurer refused to pay for the damage because Jones-Bey's husband was an excluded driver under her policy, and Crescent refused to waive the loan balance. Crescent then filed a lawsuit to collect the purported outstanding loan balance. Jones-Bey alleges Crescent violated the Maryland Closed End Credit Provisions Act and Consumer Protection Act for breaching the express terms of the RIC, and violating the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act for selling a sham gap insurance policy.
EduCap, Inc. v Dove (D.C. Super. Ct.)
This office successfully defended a debt collection lawsuit in the District of Columbia superior court that was dismissed with prejudice by Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman. As a result, more than $40,000 in private student loan debt was extinguished.
Evans v Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A. (D.D.C.)
Affirmative claims for violations of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, District of Columbia's debt collection law, and abuse of process in attempting to collect a defaulted private student loan on behalf of EduCap. Weinstock's verified complaint included false affidavits claiming Evans was not an active-duty service member subject to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act when, in fact, she was. By EduCap's own admission, it has never conducted a military status search prior to signing an affidavit of non-military service.
Hargett et al. v NCO Financial Services et al. (D.D.C.)
Affirmative claims filed on behalf of three private student loan borrowers alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia debt collection law, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C. and NCO are accused of engaging in false, deceptive and misleading debt collection conduct by filing multiple student loan lawsuits after the three-year statute of limitations. This office successfully defended the borrowers in the underlying debt collection actions which the court ruled were barred by the statute of limitations. As a result, more than $80,000 in private student loan debts were extinguished.
Parks v Plainview Financial Services (D.C. Super. Ct.)
Class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Defendant, a third-party debt buyer, was accused of filing credit card debt collection lawsuits using false, deceptive and misleading affidavits as the primary evidentiary basis to support their claims against unwitting consumers.
*Please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.
In one of the bizarre workplace complaints at the Department of Veterans Affairs in recent years, a VA nurse in Louisiana testified that a colleague threatened to tie her up, put her in the trunk of a car and drive her into a bayou, department records show. The subsequent internal investigation substantiated "threats of bodily harm"…