Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Oklahoma City Consumer Law Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: Jon Brightmire for Love Beal & Nixon, p.c.

Joshua D. Wells for Natalie Godfrey

Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma consumer law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sue Defendants on Fair Debt Collection Act violation theories under 15 U.S.C. 1692.

MoreLaw Legal News For Oklahoma City

1. Plaintiff states a claim against Love, Beal & Nixon, P.C. (“LBN”), Midland
Credit Management, Inc., and Natalie Godfrey for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, codified 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter “FDCPA”), which was enacted
in 1978.

2. Congress stated its findings and purpose of the FDCPA:
(a) Abusive practices
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many
debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices
contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to
marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of

CIV-22-568-SLP

Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 8

COMPLAINT 2

individual privacy.

(b) Inadequacy of laws

Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries
are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c) Available non-abusive collection methods

Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt
collection practices are available for the effective
collection of debts.

(d) Interstate commerce

Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a
substantial extent in interstate commerce and through
means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even
where abusive debt collection practices are purely
intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect
interstate commerce.

(e) Purposes

It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt
collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those
debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt
collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged,
and to promote consistent State action to protect
consumers against debt collection abuses.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d), which states
that such actions may be brought and heard before “any appropriate United States district
court without regard to the amount in controversy.

4. Defendants conduct business in the state of Oklahoma; therefore, personal
jurisdiction is established.
Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 8

COMPLAINT 3

5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).
PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

7. Plaintiff is a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3), and
according to Defendants, Plaintiff allegedly owes a debt as that term is defined by 15
U.S.C. 1692a(5).

8. Defendants are each a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C.
1692a(6), and sought to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant LBN
is a law firm collections business with an office in Oklahoma City, OK.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant,
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“MCM”), is a Kansas corporation with its principal
place of business at 3111 Camino Del Rio N, Suite 1300, San Diego, California 92108.
MCM also transacts business in Oklahoma, though it has no employees here.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Natalie
Godfrey is a process server in Oklahoma County, OK.

12. Defendants acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors,
heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and
insurers.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. On May 25, 2022, LBN and MCM filed a Petition against Ms. Macias,
asserting that MCM had been assigned a defaulted, consumer debt allegedly owed by Ms.
Macias, styled Midland Credit Management v. Brenda Macias, Oklahoma County Case
No. CJ-22-2458 (the “State Court Action”).
Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 8

COMPLAINT 4

14. On June 8, 2022, Defendant LBN filed, or approved of Defendant Natalie
Godfrey filing, an “Affidavit of Service” in the State Court Action where Natalie Godfrey
swore under oath to have served Ms. Macias via substituted service, stating under penalties
of perjury that Ms. Macias resided at 4609 N. Linn Ave., Oklahoma City, OK and further
that the Summons and Petition were left with an unidentified “resident/family member” on
May 31, 2022.

15. However, while the person that Natalie Godfrey encountered 4609 N. Linn
Ave. on May 31, Xavier Villalobos, was Ms. Macias’s son and was correctly identified as
a family member, Plaintiff did not reside with Xavier Villalobos at 4609 N. Linn Ave. on
May 31, 2022. See affidavits Xavier Villalobos, Mariana Rosales and Brenda Macias,
attached as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

16. Xavier Villalobos told Natalie Godfrey on several occasions that Ms. Macias
did not reside at 4609 N. Linn Ave., but Natalie Godfrey persisted with Mr. Villalobos and
left the Summons and Petition with him and Mariana Rosales, his fiancé, anyway. See
affidavits Xavier Villalobos and Mariana Rosales, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2.

17. Pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, 2004(C)(1)(c), service by personal delivery
shall be made “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the petition personally or by
leaving copies thereof at the person's dwelling house or usual place of abode with
some person then residing therein....” (emphasis added).

18. Plaintiff has engaged counsel to defend her interests in the State Court
Lawsuit, incurring attorney fees.
Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 8

COMPLAINT 5

19. Upon information and belief, at the time Defendant LBN hired Defendant
Natalie Godfrey to support its efforts to collect the alleged debt from Plaintiff, Defendant
LBN was already aware of numerous instances in which consumers averred that they were
not served with the complaint and summons by Defendant Natalie Godfrey (or her
employer), though Defendant Natalie Godfrey had executed false affidavits stating that
service had in fact been made on said consumers in lawsuits.

20. Defendants did not effect service upon Plaintiff, yet Defendant LBN
supported an Affidavit by Defendant Natalie Godfrey averring that service was in fact
properly made.

21. As a debt collector, other debt collectors assisting with the account may be
held vicariously liable for the unlawful collection activity of other debt collectors it has
hired. (See Fox v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 15 F.3d 1507 (9th Circ. 1994); Pollice v.
National Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379 (3d Cir. 2000)).

22. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection
communications by these Defendants in the form of attorney fees, anger, anxiety,
emotional distress, fear, frustration, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other
negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal
privacy.

COUNT I

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES

ACT, (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

23. Defendants acted as debt collectors, as defined by the FDCPA, with respect
to Plaintiff. Defendant Natalie Godfrey regularly attempts to collect debts by assisting debt
Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 8

COMPLAINT 6

collection lawyers, like LBN, in debt collection litigation.

24. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(D), any person while serving or attempting to
serve legal process on any other person in connection with the judicial enforcement of any
debt is not included as a debt collector but the language of § 1692a(6)(D) extends the
exemption to a person only "while serving or attempting to serve legal process." See
Romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 163 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 1998); Andrews v. S. Coast Legal
Servs., 582 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2008); and Flamm v. Sarner & Assocs., P.C.,
2002U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22255 (E.D. Penn. 2002).

25. Defendant Natalie Godfrey was not serving or attempting to serve “legal
process” but rather was engaged in the act of assisting with the filing of a false affidavit
of service by providing false testimony to force collection of the consumer debt against
Plaintiff, and to have Plaintiff believe that collection could in fact legally proceed against
her, when it could not.

26. Section 1692e of the FDCPA states in relevant part that a debt collector,
“may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection
with the collection of any debt” and § 1692e(13) prohibits the “false representation or
implication that documents are legal process.”

27. Defendants MCM and LBN through Defendant Natalie Godfrey, made
false, deceptive and misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt
by means of the false Proof of Service document filed February 27, 2020, in violation of
15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2) and 1692e(10), and § 1692e(13).

Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 6 of 8

COMPLAINT 7

28. Section 1692f of the FDCPA states in relevant part that a debt collector,
may not “use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”
29. Defendant LBN, through Defendant Natalie Godfrey’s filing a false
Affidavit, represented an unfair and unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect
a debt.

30. The acts and omissions of Defendants Natalie Godfrey and LBN who
communicated with Plaintiff and prepared a false affidavit as described herein, were
committed within the time and space limits of their agency relationship with their
principal, Defendant MCM.

31. The acts and omissions by Defendants Natalie Godfrey and LBN and its
employee debt collectors were incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the
responsibilities these agents were authorized to perform by Defendant MCM in collecting
consumer debts.

32. By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiff, Defendants
Natalie Godfrey and LBN and its employee debt collectors were motivated to benefit
their principal, Defendant MCM.

33. Defendant MCM is therefore liable to Plaintiff through the Doctrine of
Respondeat Superior for the intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in
violation of federal law by its collection employees, in their attempts to collect this
alleged debt from Plaintiff.

Case 5:22-cv-00568-SLP Document 1 Filed 07/06/22 Page 7 of 8

COMPLAINT 8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Brenda Macias, respectfully prays that judgment be
entered against Defendants, Love, Beal & Nixon, P.C., Midland Credit Management and
Natalie Godfrey, for the following:

a) Statutory damages of $1,000.00 against each Defendant, pursuant to the
FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692k;

b) Actual damages pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692k;

c) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.
1692k; and

d) Any other relief that this court deems to be just and proper.

Outcome: 08/25/2022 13  NOTICE of Settlement by Midland Credit Management Inc (Brightmire, Jon) (Entered: 08/25/2022)
08/26/2022 14  ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING ORDER: This action is administratively terminated without prejudice to the rights of the parties to reopen for entry of any stipulation or order. If not reopened within 30 days to obtain final determination, action is deemed dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Scott L. Palk on 8/26/22. (ms) (Entered: 08/26/2022)
12/01/2022 15  STIPULATION of Dismissal as to Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendants by Brenda Macias. (Wandres, Victor) (Entered: 12/01/2022)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: