Plaintiffs’ Claim of NEGLECTED DEFRAUDiencies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Class Action Lawsuit
The Commonwealth Financial Systems Class Action Lawsuit (CSCL) was filed in the U.S. district court for the state of Massachusetts by the Insolvency Group of Boston and three former defendants. The plaintiffs were instructed to file a complaint against defendants, which must include a list of facts, an averment of facts and a declaration of the ultimate claim. The defendant must then submit an answer within twenty-one days in opposition to the complaint. The defendant and his or her lawyer will then have thirty-one days to settle the claims in court before the case goes to trial.
On July 6th, the plaintiff’s complaint was filed in the court.
On July 7th, the defendants filed their reply, which included a declaration that they did not admit liability. On July 8th, the plaintiff’s attorney filed additional documents with the court. On July 9th, the court ordered a Status Conference scheduled for noon on Friday, July 12th. On that day, the court heard arguments regarding the class action certification.
At the status conference, counsel for the plaintiff stated that the defendants could not meet the burden of meeting the class action requirement as they had not filed their answer and they did not know when they would file their answer.
Further, counsel indicated that if the defendants were unable to meet these requirements, they would be outside the statute of limitations and would not be able to retain any asset from or obtain any credit from the United States. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not within the class of persons who could file a complaint under the appropriate statute. The court stated that it would allow the defendants to proceed with the class action. The court also stated that it would allow the plaintiff’s attorney to file additional documents with the court later if necessary.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is responsible for implementing the regulations contained in the FDCPA, including the commonwealth’s definition of an eligible Class Action.
The regulations are included in the Penn Foster’s website along with instructions and a list of attorneys practicing in the state of Pennsylvania. In addition, the website contains a link for individuals who are filing complaints to the appropriate State Attorney’s office. A copy of the complaint can also be obtained from the office, or an authorized representative of the office, upon request.
In an article that was submitted to the Boston Globe, Mr. Joseph A. DiLorenzi, an attorney at the law firm of Williams and Connolly, stated that he could not discuss the specifics of the case in an article pertaining to this particular lawsuit.
However, he stated that he believed that the commonwealth’s regulations related to the filing of a complaint and the issuance of an order by the court, which is required by the fdcpa, are generally in compliance with the federal regulations. Mr. DiLorenzi further stated that he believed that he had received a letter from the court in June 2021, which contained information that pertained to the regulations governing the filing of complaints in relation to the Penn Foster’s Credit Union.
On a side note, it is interesting to note that the same complaint was used in connection with a different suit filed by a different set of defendants.
Also, on a side note, the plaintiff in this case has requested that a three-year period is allowed for the recovery of the alleged debts from all persons in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom defendants sent the July 28th letter. Pursuant to the court’s order, a default judgment was entered against the defendants in this case. We will address the question of the validity of the default judgment in future articles.