Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.
Get Your FREE Review Now!
Cases Against Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.
Rumpler v. Phillips & Cohen Assocs., Ltd.
219 F. Supp. 2d 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Debt collector was suspected of misleading consumers into believing that they were legitimate attorneys. In this particular case, there was not enough evidence to support that claim. Debt collector also made questionable comments in collecting the debt after they received a dispute letter requesting valiation and before they provided the consumer with proof. The comments were too vague to be considered actual threats.
Zaborac v. Phillips & Cohen Assocs.
330 F. Supp. 2d 962 (N.D. Ill. 2004). Debt collector was accused of presenting themselves as a law firm by using the word “associates.” This term was not enough to be considered deception. Debt collector is required to provide consumers with the full amount that they owe rather the just the remaining principle balance.
Johnson v. Phillips & Cohen Assocs., Ltd.
2006 WL2355340 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2006). Debt collector failed to provide consumer with a notice regarding debt, but the court dismissed this claim as not enough to be considered deceptive.
|Address||695 Rancocas Road|