PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

YOUR NAME

Street Address

City, State  Zip

Phone Number (with area code)

Fax Number (If applicable)

Email Address (If applicable)

Appearing in pro per on behalf of Quality Care Daycare at BUP, LLP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND

QUALITY CARE DAYCARE AT BUP, LLP,Plaintiff, vs. LAKESIDE NATIONAL, LLC; GERARD F. MILES; [NAME OF JUDGE]; and STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendant(s)

)) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.:   PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Quality Care Daycare at BUP, LLP, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Lakeside National, LLC and Gerard F. Miles, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 18 U.S.C. § 152(4) and (8).
2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Quality Care Daycare at BUP, LLC is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland whose address is 875 N. Howard St., Baltimore, MD 21201.
5. Defendant Lakeside National, LLC, is the mortgage lender who engaged in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff in the bankruptcy proceedings whose address known to Plaintiff is 54 Windermere Parkway, Baltimore, Maryland 21201.
6. Defendant Gerard F. Miles, is the attorney for the mortgage company who knowingly and fraudulently presented the false claims in bankruptcy court against Plaintiff’s properties whose address known to 54 Windermere Parkway, Baltimore, Maryland 21201.
7. Defendant [Name of Judge] is a judge sitting at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
8. Defendant State of Maryland is the state in which the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland is located.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. On 02/16/2022, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.
10. Defendant Lakeside National, filed two false claims against Plaintiff’s properties in the bankruptcy proceeding.
11. The false claims were filed with the knowledge that the claims were factually untrue at the time of filing.
12. Defendant, [The Judge of the Bankruptcy Court], failed to take appropriate action to prevent the filing of the false claims.
13. Defendant State of Maryland, failed to properly train and supervise the judge of the bankruptcy court, leading to the judge’s failure to prevent the filing of the false claims.
14. Defendant Lakeside National engaged in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff in the bankruptcy proceedings by inducing Defendant Gerard F. Miles to file the false claims against Plaintiff’s properties.
15. The subject property is located at 875 N. Howard St., Baltimore, MD 21201, where Plaintiff operates.
16. Defendant Gerard F. Miles knowingly and fraudulently presented the false claims in bankruptcy court against Plaintiff’s properties through a Proof of Claim which falsely alleged that Plaintiff owed Lakeside National $353,005.43.
17. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form facing the threat of a foreclosure sale on its property and has incurred additional interest, attorneys’ fees, late fees, and other costs as a result of Mr. Miles and Lakeside’s actions and inactions and failure to remedy the errors committed.

Count I – Violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-101

 

18. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
19. The mortgage loan servicing and transactions of Lakeside, as set forth herein, are governed by the Consumer Protection Act, Code Ann., Com. Law. § 13-101, et. seq.
20. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by § 13-101(c)(1)-(2) as it is the actual purchaser or recipient of consumer goods, services, realty, or credit as this dispute involves a loan on commercial property that was purchased as Plaintiff’s primary business location and wherein it operates.
21. Lakeside is a “Merchant” as defined by C.L. § 13-101(g) as Lakeside directly or indirectly offers or makes available to consumers, consumer goods, services, realty, or credit of commercial mortgage loans.
22. Miles and Lakeside have acted as collectors under MCDCA by attempting to collect from Ms. Tao upon an alleged loan arising out of a consumer transaction. LAW §14-201(b).
23. Section 13-303 prohibits unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices in the extension of consumer credit or collection of consumer debts. The communications and servicing activities of Miles and Lakeside as set forth above in paragraphs of this Complaint involve both the extension of credit and the collection of debts.
24. Section 13-301 contains a non-exclusive list of unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices to include, inter alia, the following: (a) False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers; and (b) Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive. L. § 13-101(1),(3)
25. Plaintiff alleges that Miles and Lakeside engaged in the following unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices (among others): Miles and Lakeside attempt to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default at the time of the filing of such an action.
26. Miles and Lakeside stated in their Proof of Claim that Plaintiff owed $353,005.43 as the balance on the subject property whereas Plaintiff completed payments on the mortgage in 2018.
27. By engaging in the acts and omissions set forth above, by making the misrepresentations set forth above, and by failing to disclose material facts where the failure to do so deceived or tended to deceive, Miles and Lakeside have committed unlawful or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
28. Miles’ and Lakeside’s conduct, misrepresentations, and omissions, as set forth above, had the capacity, tendency or effect of deceiving the Ms. Tao who did rely on the misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and who has suffered economic and non-economic damages (including emotional distress and mental anguish).
29. The statement that the mortgage loan servicing and transactions of Lakeside are governed by the Consumer Protection Act in Maryland is supported by Maryland Code, Commercial Law § 13-101, et. seq.
30. The assertion that Miles and Lakeside have acted as collectors under Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) is supported by Maryland Code, Commercial Law §14-201(b), which defines “collection agency” to include any person who attempts to collect a consumer claim.
31. The statement that Section 13-303 of the Consumer Protection Act prohibits unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices in the extension of consumer credit or collection of consumer debts is supported by the law. In Maryland Office of the Attorney General v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 2d 607 (D. Md. 2010), the court held that the defendant’s debt collection practices violated Section 13-303 of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
32. The assertion that Section 13-301 of the Consumer Protection Act contains a non-exclusive list of unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices, including false or misleading statements, is also supported by the law. In Samuels v. North American Mortgage Co., 546 F. Supp. 2d 345 (D. Md. 2008), the court held that the defendant’s false and misleading representations to the plaintiff constituted a violation of Section 13-301(a) of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
33. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Miles and Lakeside and award it treble damages (including economic and non-economic) to be proven at trial in a sum in excess of $75,000; incidental and consequential damages; costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff; and grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.

COUNT II – Violations of Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7–401, et seq.

34. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
35. The Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act (“MMFPA”), Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401, seq., governs the relationship between SLS and Mr. Ingrassia.
36. The MMFPA works to protect the interest of all parties to mortgage transactions in Maryland from misstatements, misrepresentations and omissions. In this instance, the MMFPA works to protect borrowers like Ms. Tao from so-called professionals like Lakeside and Miles to ensure a level, fair playing field between all borrowers and professionals.
37. Plaintiff is a homeowner in the Mortgage Lending Process as defined by the MMFPA since the actions in dispute in this lawsuit involve the negotiation and servicing of the mortgage loan.
38. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 14-301(k) provides that “Owner” means a record owner of commercial real property. Plaintiff is the record owner of the subject commercial property in question and is, therefore, a Homeowner as understood in this statute.
39. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401(e) provides that “Mortgage lending process… include[s] [t]he… of a mortgage loan.”
40. The MMFPA works to protect the interests of all parties to mortgage transactions in Maryland from misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions. In this instance, the MMFPA works to protect borrowers like the Plaintiff from companies like Lakeside and ensure a level, fair playing field between all borrowers and professionals.
41. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401(d) provides:

“Mortgage fraud” means any action by a person made with the intent to defraud that involves:

1. Knowingly making any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the misstatement, misrepresentation or omission be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower or any other party to the mortgage lending process;
2. Knowingly using or facilitating the use of any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process.
3. Receiving any proceeds or any other funds in connection with a mortgage closing that the person knows resulted from a violation of item (1) or (2) of this section;
4. Conspiring to violate any provisions of item (1), (2), or (3) of this section…
5. Miles and Lakeside knowing conduct and intention to defraud Plaintiff is demonstrated by their dishonest statements and omissions and willful refusal to know the true facts exemplified
6. Miles and Lakeside committed mortgage fraud as defined in Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401(d) by knowingly making deliberate misstatements, misrepresentations, or omissions (including but not limited to those discussed in this Complaint):
7. Plaintiff alleges that Miles and Lakeside engaged in the following unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices (among others): Miles and Lakeside attempt to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default at the time of the filing of such an action.
8. All of the misstatements, misrepresentations, or omissions described herein were made with actual malice as both Miles and Lakeside had the intent to deceive Plaintiff and it had actual knowledge of the falsity of its statements.
9. In Maryland federal court, violations of the MMFPA can result in civil penalties, as well as criminal charges. For example, in United States v. Franklin, 728 F. Supp. 2d 792 (D. Md. 2010), the defendant was convicted of mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and violation of the MMFPA for defrauding mortgage lenders by falsifying loan documents and creating fraudulent mortgages.
10. In the present case, Miles and Lakeside are alleged to have engaged in mortgage fraud as defined in Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401(d) by knowingly making deliberate misstatements, misrepresentations, or omissions during the mortgage lending process with the intent that the misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission be relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower, or any other party to the mortgage lending process. This includes the allegations that they attempted to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default at the time of the filing of such an action, produced competing ledgers, and submitted documents claiming varying amounts owed as to the principal balance. These misrepresentations and omissions were allegedly made with actual malice, and both Miles and Lakeside had the intent to deceive Plaintiff and had actual knowledge of the falsity of its statements.
11. Lakeside’s and Miles’ actions constitute a violation of Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-402.
12. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Lakeside and Miles and award her treble damages (including economic and non-economic) to be proven at trial in a sum in excess of $75,000; punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; incidental and consequential damages; costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff; and grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this court finds necessary and proper.

COUNT III – Fraud

 

50. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
51. Miles and Lakeside made false representations and intentional omissions of material fact as follows:
52. Plaintiff alleges that Miles and Lakeside engaged in the following unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices (among others): Miles and Lakeside attempt to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default at the time of the filing of such an action.
53. All of the misstatements, misrepresentations, or omissions described herein were made with actual malice as Miles and Lakesdie had the intent to deceive Plaintiff and it had actual knowledge of the falsity of its statements as it was in possession of all documents and facts.
54. Plaintiff suffered economic and non-economic damages as a direct result of the reasonable reliance on Miles and Lakeside’s false representations and omissions.
55. Under Maryland law, a plaintiff must establish the following elements to prove a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation: (1) a false representation, (2) that is material or important, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, (4) with the intent to deceive another party, (5) upon which the plaintiff justifiably relied, and (6) resulting in damage to the plaintiff. See Fleetwood Motor Homes of Pa., Inc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 844 F. Supp. 1048, 1067 (D. Md. 1993).
56. Plaintiff alleges that Miles and Lakeside made false representations and intentional omissions of material fact by attempting to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default, producing competing ledgers that negate each other as false, and submitting documents claiming varying amounts owed as to the principal balance.
57. Plaintiff also alleges that all of the misstatements, misrepresentations, or omissions were made with actual malice and that she suffered economic and non-economic damages as a direct result of her reasonable reliance on Miles and Lakeside’s false representations and omissions.
58. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Miles and Lakeside and award it actual damages (including economic and non-economic) to be proven at trial in a sum in excess of $75,000; punitive damages in the amount to be proven at trial; incidental and consequential damages; costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff; and grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this court finds necessary and proper.

Count IV – Violations of the federal fair debt collection practices act (“fdcpa”) 

 

59. Plaintiff reincorporates all preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
60. As debt collectors subject to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (“FDCPA”), Defendant Miles is prohibited from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
61. Miles made false, deceptive and misleading representations in connection with the collection of the debt as follows:
62. Plaintiff alleges that Miles and Lakeside engaged in the following unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices (among others): Miles attempts to collect on a debt via a foreclosure action when the debt was not in default at the time of the filing of such an action.
63. In Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., the Maryland federal court held that a debt collector violates § 1692e(2)(A) of the FDCPA when it sends a collection letter that includes contradictory statements about the amount owed. 516 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1349 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
64. In addition, in Simpson v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, the court held that a debt collector violates § 1692e(5) of the FDCPA when it falsely represents the character, amount, or legal status of the debt. 810 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1095 (D. Md. 2011).
65. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter judgment in its favor and against Miles and award it Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to FDCPA; 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; Statutory damages up to $1,000.00 pursuant to FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(2)(A) and grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this court finds necessary and proper.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs;

• An award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

1. An injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from filing or prosecuting any claim against Plaintiff’s properties;
2. An injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any further illegal activities related to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings; and
3. Any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Dated this _____ day of April, 2023.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Natalie Tao,

Appearing in pro per on behalf of Quality Care Daycare at BUP, LLC

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )