[michaelh]

I have been working with the DC Bar and they have opened an investigation into this guy and his bogus Family owned Company- He has a dummy company called Abante Rooter and Plumbing. They are asking for anyone who has received one of his letters to go to this site and download the form and fill it out on your dealing's with this Attorney and fax or mail it back

https://www.dcbar.org/attorney-disci...-complaint.cfm

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
515 Fifth Street, N.W.
Building A, Room 117
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 638-1501 Fax (202) 638-0862
www.dcattorneydiscipline.org


You need to scrub your list against the DNC registry, and be extremely well versed in the TCPA before embarking on any telemarketing, let alone automated "press 1" campaigns or even outsourcing it to a 3rd party.

There are people who literally make a living out of entrapping telemarketers who unknowingly violate TCPA. One such person set up a completely fake plumbing company and dozens of forwarding numbers and put himself on tons of marketing lists just for the purpose of threatening lawsuits and forcing people to settle with him -- see below excerpt from an email from a telemarketing provider.

You have to give Fred and Andrew Heidarpour credit. They have quite a racket. Yes, as in racketeering. Somehow the Feds can't put two and two together. Give Fred a call at any one of his 29 company phone numbers and offer him funds and you'll get sued. Give Fred a call at any one of his company's 29 phone numbers for plumbing service, no one will come out.

For your protection, these are all the numbers associated with Abante Rooter and Plumbing. Put them on your DNC


Abante Rooter and Plumbing
6467813678
6467818527
9252540843
3045200904
9258957551
5103855405
5105673508
7049002393
2093833803
9252530106
5103515154
5106537447
5107941634
5105347590
9252537997
9256875511
9252567511
9258856702
5102195514
5103855520
5103859645
9257667255
5109697928
5103855206
5103858552
5105684053
5105620999
5104308718
5106354260

[Shorebird]

Thanks!

[capaxess]

I have been working with the DC Bar and they have opened an investigation into this guy and his bogus Family owned Company- He has a dummy company called Abante Rooter and Plumbing. They are asking for anyone who has received one of his letters to go to this site and download the form and fill it out on your dealing's with this Attorney and fax or mail it back

https://www.dcbar.org/attorney-disci...-complaint.cfm

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
515 Fifth Street, N.W.
Building A, Room 117
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 638-1501 Fax (202) 638-0862
www.dcattorneydiscipline.org


You need to scrub your list against the DNC registry, and be extremely well versed in the TCPA before embarking on any telemarketing, let alone automated "press 1" campaigns or even outsourcing it to a 3rd party.

There are people who literally make a living out of entrapping telemarketers who unknowingly violate TCPA. One such person set up a completely fake plumbing company and dozens of forwarding numbers and put himself on tons of marketing lists just for the purpose of threatening lawsuits and forcing people to settle with him -- see below excerpt from an email from a telemarketing provider.

You have to give Fred and Andrew Heidarpour credit. They have quite a racket. Yes, as in racketeering. Somehow the Feds can't put two and two together. Give Fred a call at any one of his 29 company phone numbers and offer him funds and you'll get sued. Give Fred a call at any one of his company's 29 phone numbers for plumbing service, no one will come out.

For your protection, these are all the numbers associated with Abante Rooter and Plumbing. Put them on your DNC


Abante Rooter and Plumbing
6467813678
6467818527
9252540843
3045200904
9258957551
5103855405
5105673508
7049002393
2093833803
9252530106
5103515154
5106537447
5107941634
5105347590
9252537997
9256875511
9252567511
9258856702
5102195514
5103855520
5103859645
9257667255
5109697928
5103855206
5103858552
5105684053
5105620999
5104308718
5106354260

I received a couple of emails from this fake-job threatening legal action - after reviewing the emails I realized none of the numbers they listed were on my lead lists or dialer so I ignored them and they eventually stopped sending messages. I figured if someone is going to take legal action they'll just do so, not send a bunch of emails threatening to do so.

[michaelh]

Attorney Facing Civil RICO Claim Ordered to Produce Attorney–Client Communications Made in Furtherance of Alleged Scheme to Manufacture TCPA Claims
March 24, 2020
Michael P. Daly and Renée M. Dudek
Abusive Lawsuits, Counterclaim, Discovery, Professional Plaintiffs, Standing.

A federal court presiding over a civil RICO action recently ordered prolific plaintiff’s attorney Jeffrey Lohman to produce his firm’s communications with its clients. See Navient Sols., LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, P.C., No. 19-461, 2020 WL 1172696, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020). This decision shows that the crime-fraud exception may overcome the attorney–client privilege where a lawyer allegedly participates in a scheme to manufacture TCPA claims. It also suggests that such conduct might form the basis of a civil RICO claim.

The plaintiff in that case, Navient Solutions, alleged that the defendants, including Lohman, operated a fraudulent scheme to manufacture TCPA lawsuits. The defendants allegedly recruited student-debtors into signing up for a sham debt-relief program and told them to stop making loan payments owed to Navient, to pay defendants instead, and to follow a script to induce telephone calls from Navient that would — and ultimately did — form the basis for TCPA claims that were filed by Lohman and others. After patiently uncovering these facts in discovery in various TCPA cases, Navient went on the offensive by bringing a civil RICO claim predicated on alleged mail and wire fraud involved in the scheme.

In discovery, Navient requested that Lohman, his law firm, and several other attorneys at his firm (the “Lohman Defendants”) produce communications and other documents they had exchanged with existing, former, or potential student-debtor clients. The Lohman Defendants objected on the basis of attorney–client privilege. In response, Navient argued that the documents were discoverable and that the court should compel production based on the crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. The Lohman Defendants countered that the crime-fraud exception is inapplicable because Navient did not allege that their clients gave information to them for purposes of committing a crime or fraud. They also alleged that Navient had not met its prima facie evidentiary burden to establish a crime or fraud, arguing that litigation activity cannot form the basis of a civil RICO claim.

The court rejected both of the Lohman Defendants’ arguments. First, it held that the crime-fraud exception may apply even when it is the attorney alone (and not the client) that allegedly engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct. It also noted that, in any event, there was at least some evidence that the clients had engaged in (or were at least aware of) fraudulent conduct by participating in a scheme to defraud Navient out of millions of dollars it was owed in outstanding student debt.

Second, it found that the civil RICO claim was about more than just litigation activity. Rather, Navient had alleged and pointed to evidence that the Lohman Defendants had committed wire and/or mail fraud in perpetuation of the alleged scheme, including via their mailings and calls to student-debtors regarding their loans. Accordingly, the court reasoned that the claim was about more than just litigation activity and held that Navient had met its evidentiary burden. The court also noted that, even if the only acts alleged by Navient were litigation activity, litigation activity can, in and of itself, form the basis for a civil RICO claim. Accordingly, it ordered the Lohman Defendants to produce the communications it had withheld on the basis of the attorney–client privilege.

While both the court and Navient focused on the allegations that the defendants had schemed to defraud Navient of loan payments, it is worth noting that the Lohman Defendants’ alleged misconduct included filing manufactured claims. Similarly, the court noted, albeit in dicta, that litigation activity can sometimes form the basis of a predicate offense for a civil RICO claim. This may lend support for defendants to bring civil RICO claims — either as counterclaims or as independent actions — if they marshal evidence that TCPA plaintiffs and/or their attorneys engaged in a predicate RICO offense such as mail or wire fraud. Still, the conduct alleged here seems extreme even by TCPA standards, so it remains to be seen whether civil RICO claims by TCPA defendants will become the order of the day.

[michaelh]

Last year, this blog analyzed whether and when professional plaintiffs have standing to assert TCPA claims. A Massachusetts District Court recently examined that issue and held that a plaintiff’s standing “boils down to” how a plaintiff uses a given phone line.
In Rhodes v. Liberty Power Holdings, LLC, No. 18-10506, 2019 WL 4645524 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2019), the Court examined TCPA claims brought by two representatives of a putative class. One of them, Samuel Katz (“Katz”), fits the profile of a professional plaintiff, as he is a “frequent litigant in TCPA cases” who “closely tracks the telemarketing calls he receives.” Katz has served over two dozen TCPA demand letters and has filed at least nine TCPA lawsuits. In the present matter, he alleges that he received thirteen automated calls to a “residential landline that he maintained for emergencies.”
Defendants moved for summary judgment as to Katz’s claims, asserting that he is a professional plaintiff and thus lacks standing. Specifically, Defendants argued that Katz did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the TCPA because “he proactively embraces telemarketing calls and simply makes money from the statute,” which is inconsistent with the purpose of the TCPA.
Defendants’ summary judgment motion as to Katz was denied. The court opined that, “[a]lthough telemarketing calls may not truly be a scourge for Mr. Katz, who has turned the calls into a financial opportunity, the issue of Mr. Katz’s standing boils down to whether he maintained the number [at-issue] … for any purpose other than attracting telemarketing calls to support his TCPA lawsuits.” The court found that the phone line at issue “was not, at least according to Mr. Katz, maintained solely for the purpose of filing TCPA lawsuits.” The decision did not disclose, however, whether there was any evidence other than Katz’s own statements in support of Katz’s claim that he kept the landline for the purpose of emergency calls.
Thus, the Rhodes court applied the reasoning found in the heavily-cited Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197 F. Supp. 3d 782 (W.D. Pa. 2016) decision, wherein the court held that a professional plaintiff did not have standing in large part due to the fact that the plaintiff’s “only purpose in using her cell phones is to file TCPA lawsuits.” See also Morris v. Hornet Corp., No. 17- 0350, 2018 WL 4781263 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2018) (denying motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not own the phone “purely for the purpose of filing TCPA lawsuits.”). Thus, in the court’s view, Katz met the exceedingly low bar of showing that the phone line at issue existed for purposes other than attracting telemarketing calls, allowing him to survive a summary judgment motion on the issue of standing.
Notably, in Cunningham v. Florio, No. 17-0839, 2018 WL 4473792 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2018), in which the defendants argued that the claims had been brought by a professional plaintiff, the Court did not examine whether the phone line was used solely to provide a factual basis for TCPA claims. Instead, in the context of a motion to dismiss, the Eastern District of Texas held that, “at this early stage of litigation,” it could not rule on whether plaintiff had suffered a true nuisance or invasion of privacy.
As a result of the Rhodes decision and others like it, in professional plaintiff cases, defendants may wish to explore, at the earliest possible opportunity, whether or not the phone line(s) at issue are maintained for any purpose other than receiving automated calls to then use as a basis for TCPA litigation. Additionally, consistent with decisions such as Cunningham, Defendants also may wish to assert that, despite the fact that a plaintiff may have maintained the at-issue phone line for purposes other than receiving automated calls, a professional plaintiff does not have standing because the plaintiff did not suffer any nuisance or invasion of privacy, and was in fact overjoyed to receive an errant telemarketing call. A seemingly bright line test, turning solely on the purpose for which the phone line exists, does not appear to be the most logical (or the fairest for that matter) test for determining whether or not the plaintiff suffered concrete harm sufficient to establish standing to assert a TCPA violation.

[ATBS]

The State probably will not charge them with any wrongdoing or even perform an investigation. Odd but likely true. The attorney-client privilege is used as a shield to prevent any inquiry by the Bar into the lawyer's communications with the client, unless the client reports to the State Bar. Anyone think that will happen?

Anyone have info on the other Heidarpours that we don't already know? https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr...illing-manager

Another one of Heidarpour's clients, James Robert Schaffer aka James Schaffer: https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/...7_crm_813.html

These plaintiffs sometimes claim they received an email from the Defendant or a text message. Here is a guy who was federally convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud by electronic mail. Wonder how he got hooked up with Heidarpour.

[mrmrg]

This is getting out of control lately..

My shop has been sued three times now, twice by professional plaintiffs. One was another TCPA attorney using a burner cell and the other was a professional plaintiff. He's pretty famous for suing just about anyone out there. Guy even had a website claiming to "purchase" TCPA suits.

All three times we had to settle because our TCPA attorney advised us that the cost of defense alone would be 10k+.

The last one we just came from a call that was made in 2017 from our dialer. The pos sued us months before the statue of limitations ran out, had to pay him 3K plus legal fees to settle.

[zalman]

This Heidarpour guy is so lazy he won't do anything past send a threatening email requesting a payout.... I've gotten emails from this POS in the past...

[zalman]

If you Google Terry Fabricant you'll find an insane amount of TCPA cases including with this Heidarpour lawyer. These guys need to be stopped!

[tcpalitigatorlist]

Andrew Heidarpour is one of many TCPA attorneys.
Anthony Paronich and Sergei Lemberg.
Most of the TCPA cases are from the serial TCPA litigators.
Get protected and significantly lower your TCPA risk with the tcpalitigatorlist.com
Get your first month free promo.
Use Discount Code: freemonth149
tcpalitigatorlist.com



TCPA Why the TCPA Litigator List.jpg

[Franklin]

When you call, be invisible; don't let numbers lead back to you and don't just give out your company name and information.


Professional litigators send boilerplate letters to tons of Isos/funders waiting for someone to respond. They don't have time to engage everyone, so sometimes you can ignore the letters, but make sure you don't repeat the offense with the same caller, company, or number.



The issue with settling on the first go is that you become a "payer" and now you're a target. They'll be looking for you again, and threats after that will be real.

So weigh carefully if you want to go that route. It ultimately depends on what they have on you; you don't have to admit to or confirm anything.














www.UccRadar.com

[ATBS]

This Heidarpour guy is so lazy he won't do anything past send a threatening email requesting a payout.... I've gotten emails from this POS in the past...

Who is he claiming the "client" is?

Anyone getting letters from Todd Friedman? If so, maybe we can start another thread for him. The Beverly Hills address (324 S. Beverly Dr.) he has used on his letterhead is actually a UPS Store with mailboxes.