Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA
jpenn@ hinshawlaw.com
SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940)
sfranks@ hinshawlaw.com
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402
Telephone: 213-680-2800
Facsimile: 213-614-7399
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity
Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio
Group, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. CV3
Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable
Theodore C. Zayner
vs.
COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY
MARIA CANUL, EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CROSS
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
Defendant CROSS COMPLAINANT MARIA
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
UDGMENT, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MARIA CANUL
Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Cross-Complainant, Separate Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts and Supporting Evidence, Declaration
vs. of Deanna SgroRequest for Judicial
Notice, concurrently filed herewith.]
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New
ersey limited liability company; VELOCITY
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Date: October
25, 2023
corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept.: 19
Cross Defendants.
Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016
Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
tos Arges, CA 9071
1045141 314832004.v1
Pursuant to Califommia Rule of Court 3.1350(g), Cross Defendants Velocity Investments,
LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) hereby
submit the following Compendium of Documentary Evidence in support of their Opposition to
Cross-Complainant Maria Canul Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion
for Summary Adjudication. Each of the following Exhibits is attached. Further, these Exhibits are
authenticated by the following Declaration of Justin M. Penn.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Documentary Evidence Exhibit
Velocity Investment, LLC’s September 20, 2016 Complaint for Money
Velocity Investments LLC Litigation Policy
Velocity’s 2018 Litigation Policy
Velocity Vendor Management Policy
Velocity Investments, LLC’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories,
Set One
Relevant Excerpts from the Deposition of Cross-Complainant Maria Canul
Cross-Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
September 21, 2023 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings in Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, et al., Case No.
20CV 373916.
DATED: September 27 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By /s/ Justin M. Penn
Justin M. Penn
Sara E. Franks
Attomeys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-
Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
tos Arges, CA 9071
1045141 314832004.v1
DECLARATION OF JUSTIN M. PENN
I, JUSTIN M. PENN, hereby declare as follows:
1 I am an attomey duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California
and am a partner with the law firm, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, attorneys of record herein for
Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc.
(collectively, “Cross Defendants”) and submit this declaration in support of Cross Defendants’
Opposition to Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I am familiar with the facts
t forth herein and can competently testify to them if required to do so.
2 I am familiar with all the discovery materials in this action. I have analyzed the
allegations in Cross-Complainant’s First Amended Class Action Cross-Complaint and reviewed
materials, including the records produced by all parties, discovery responses served by counsel,
and court filings in this action.
3 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Velocity Investment,
LLC’s September 20, 2016 Complaint for Money.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s Velocity
Investments LLC Litigation Policy. Exhibit B can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY -
CANUL000076-000081.
5 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s 2018
Litigation Policy. Exhibit C can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY -CANUL-000082-
6 Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s Velocity
Vendor Management Policy. Exhibit D can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY -
CANUL000104-000107.
7 Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Velocity Investments,
LLC’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One
8 Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the
Deposition of Cross-Complainant Maria Canul.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
tos Arges, CA 9071
1045141 314832004.v1
Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Cross-Defendants’
Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment filed in this Court on July 21, 2023.
Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the September 21, 2023
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Chai v. Velocity
Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 20CV 373916.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.
Chicago, Illinois
/s/ Justin M. Pen L a
Justin M. Penn
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
tos Arges, CA 9071
1045141 314832004.v1
EXHIBIT “A”
ENDOR SED
MATTHEW J. KUMAR, ESQ. Bar No. 283521
ALI FARZIN, ESQ. Bar No. 278564
LAW OFFICE OF RORY W. CLARK,
2H SEP 20 A & Su
A Professional Law Corporation Fs
14900 Magnolia Blyd. #55997 PHaLOn tes ie
Sherroan Oaks, CA 91403 ey.
Attomeys for Plaintiff
Internal File No. ¥1500062
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,SANTA CLARA “LIMITED CIVIL"
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC. CASE NO.
LTECTSOO096
WW
Plaintiff,
12 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY:
vs OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT, AND
13 MONEY LENT,
MARIA CANUL, (COMMON COUNTS};
DECLARATION
and DOES J through X, inclusive,
15 DEMAND AMOUN
Defendants. $4,792.17
16
17
PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §1692g AND CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1788.17,
18 UNLESS YOU, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE,
DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF,
19 THE DEBT WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE VALID BY THIS DEBT
COLLECTOR. IF YOU NOTIFY THIS DEBT COLLECTOR IN WRITING.
20 WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD THAT THE DEBT OR ANY PORTION
THEREOF IS DISPUTED, THIS DEBT COLLECTOR WILL OBTAIN
21 VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT OR A COPY OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST
YOU AND A COPY OF SUCH VERHMCATION OR JUDGMENT WILL BE
22 MAILED TG YOU BY THIS DEBT COLLECTOR. UPON YOUR WRITTEN
REQUEST WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THIS DEBT COLLECTOR
23 WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE
ORIGINAL CREDITOR, IF DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT CREDITOR.
24
el
25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (>Glihe
THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY
INFORMATION PROVIDED MAY BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS
COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.
THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACF
AND THE FEDERAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT
REQUIRE THAT, EXCEPT UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
COLLECTORS MAY NOT CONTACT YOU BEFORE 8 A.M. OR AFTER 9
P.M. THEY MAY NOT HARASS YOU BY USING THREATS OF VIOLENCE
OR ARREST OR BY USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. COLLECTORS MAY
NOT USE FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS OR CALL YOU AT
WORK IF THEY KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO KNOW THAT YOU MAY
NOT RECEIVE PERSONAL’ CALLS AT WORK. FOR THE MOST PART,
COLLECTORS MAY NOT TELL ANOTHER PERSON, OTHER THAN YOUR
ATTORNEY OR SPOUSE, ABOUT YOUR DEBT. COLLECTORS MAY
CONTACT ANOTHER PERSON TO CONFIRM YOUR LOCATION OR
ENFORCE A JUDGMENT. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT
10 COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION AT 1-877-FTC-HELPeseneentien
OR WWW.FEC.GOV.
i
Plaintiff, VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges against Defendants, MARIA
12
CANUL and DOES I thri: X, inclusive, (“Defendant”) as follows:
13
L That Plaintiff is now and was at all times mentioned a Limited Liability Company
4
authorized to do and engaged in doing business in the State of California.
15
2. That Defendant is a natural person currently residing in the State of California, ta
16
whom Plaintiff's assignor extended credit.
li
a ‘That the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
18
otherwise, of the defendants named in this action as DOES I through X, inclugiy vn to
19
Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintifé wil end this
20.
Complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained: Plaintiff is
21
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitionsly named defendants is
22
23
24
Be
25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs damages as
herein alieged were proximately caused by their conduct.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§1788.50-1788.64
4 Plaintiff on or after January 1, 2014, purchased a consumer credit account that is the
basis of this action. The purchase of said debt is thereby subject to Civil Code $§1788,.50-1788.64.
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1788.58(a):
(1) Plaintiffis a debt buyer.
(2} LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION issued and/or serviced a loan for funds on behalfof
Defendant to be electronically transferred to the bank account of Defendant's choosing. Plaintiff
10 alleges on information and belief, Defendant accessed those funds and used, or otherwise authorized
it its use, for the acquisition of goods, services, balance transfers, and/or other cash withdrawals.
12 During that time, Defendant had access to review and view detailed aciivity of the account, the
13 balance due, any accrual of fees, interest, payments, and/or the application of each of those items for
14 the account. Defendant then failed to make the regular payments whea due thereby causing a default
18 in the repayment of the account. Thereafter, Plaintiff then received all of the rights, tifles to, and
16 interest in said credit account.
17 (3) Plaintiffis now the sole owner of the debt at issue, or has the authorityto assert the rights
18 of all owners of the debi.
19 (A) The debt balance at charge-off was $4,792.17. Plaintiff does not seek or add any post-
20 charge-off interest or fees.
thelast-paym! orabou: seks
a aS ——S
23
3.
25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
(6) The name and an address of the charge-off creditor at the time of charge-off is:
LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, 71 Stevenson St. Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105. The
charge-off creditor's account number associated with the debt is KXX2945.
4 (7) The name and Jasi known address of the Defendant as they appeared in the charge-off
creditor's records prior to the sale of the debt is: MARIA.CANUL 35 S. LSTH ST. #2 SAN JOSE,
CA 95112.
(8) The names and addresses of ail persons or entities that purchased the debt ater charge-
off are as follows: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, PO BOX 788 WALL, NI 07719.
(9) Plaintiff has complied with California Civil Code § 1788.52.
10 > Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Ex] is a copy of the document
Ll described in California Civil Code § 1788.52(b).
12
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Open Book Accouat - as to ail Defendants)
i4 6. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of
15 Paragraphs 1 through 5, inclusive.
4
16 v That within the last four years, LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION and Defendant
7 established an Open Book Account for accountnumber XXX2945 arising from 4written agreement.
18 Said Open Book Account reflected-all debits and credits in connection with the aforementioned
19 account, and was kept in permanent form in the regular course of business by LENDINGCLUB
20 CORPORATION. As of its final entry, said Open Book Account provided that Defendant was
idebted:t
ae Ss
(if scassi gnor
ST
in: thewunro€Ste7 99 ie Pesymments/ered eine the amonntof$0. 00: eas
22 have since been posted to the subject account, leaving a total outstanding principal balance due of
23 $4,792.17.
4A
25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
SECOND CAUSE OF
QMoney Lent - as to sill
8 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of
Paragraphs | tro Ay
9. That: the past four years. nt became indebted to Plaintiff's
assignor ior money ibsiibstsaves dant athis/her equest, and which Defendant agreed
to repay. Defendant received funds from Plaintii#’s assignor, but did not repay as promised.
Defeadant has retained the sums rightfully belonging to Plaintiff's assignor in the amount
y eh
of $4,792.17. Although demand has been made, faim has been paid except for
the amount of $0.00, representing a paymentor regi On
2 ) vk
‘account. This results in a total
ie 3S
Ni ;
outstanding principal balauce due of $4,792.17." auld rds
1]
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows:
12
AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION:
13
Principal in the sum of $4,792.17;
14
Costs of suit incurred in this action; and
15
ach other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
16
17
Law OFFICE oF Rory W. Cuark,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ft
18
19
ALIFAI
20 Attomeys hha
23
21
23
24
3-
COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
xe
This website does not supsortshis versionof ternal E¥plorer. Plsase upgradete the latest version for a beller axpetience, Usorade
Lending Clud
Utilities,
* Welcome Antaone!
® Acsount
* Settings
» Sion Out
® Help
© View Full Sits,
> lcwesting
* PersonalLoans
© EWorks
How
+ AboutUs
Truth in Lending Disclosure
Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement
Lender
WebBank
6440 South Wasatch Bouleverc
Suita 200
SaltLake City, UT84121
Borrower
Matia CANUL
35s, 15th st 42
San dose,CA $5112
Annual Percerlage Rats
‘The cost of your ereditas a yearly rate
12.58%
Finance Charge
The dollar amount tie credit
yall cost you
$2,964(e)
Amount Financed:
The amount of credit oravided io you or an your behatl
$14,400(e}
Total of Payments
The amount you will have oaid when you hava made all scheduled paymenis
#17.366(6)
our pe ent schedule
will be as follows:
\Nutriberof Asnount
When payments are due
“peyinents (e)
$4382.32
First payment is due on 7/42/12, and each subsequent paymentis due monthly therealter on the same
day of each moni
a _-._.-.-.$482.80._Last
paymentis dub on 6112/15 = fee ise tsb
sae
Late charges: IF your payment anives aller your15 day grecs period, you will be charged a late fee eauial to the greater of:
3.00% of hs lle payment amount or $18. This fee's charged orly ence per le payment.
Prepayment policy: # you pay off your loanin athanse, yols ill not be charged a penally, Inthe event of a prepayment. you til
not be aniitled to a refund of any pre-pald finance chergés of other fees,
See your borrewérmembership and loan agreements for any additional information about nanpayment, default, or
other matters ralatad fo your loan.
(e) means estimate
PYHIRIT A
hems marked (¢} will decrsase if you receive fess than 190% funding. Regardiess of the ultimate amount of the loan, your
APR will not change. Subjectto your right to cancel, any unsecured loan will issue if It is at least 60% funded by the end
of the listing period,
Total Amount Requesied: $15,000.00
LendingClud Fees: $600.00
Total Amount Received: $14,400.03
Unsuccessful payment fee. When @ payment fails ard is rejected by your bank, you wil be charged an Unsuccessful Payment Fee of
315 to cover the cost Lending Club incurs on the transection.
Each attempt to collect e montity payment is considered a separale transaction, so an Unsuccessiul Payment Fee will bs assessed
for each falled attempt.
Check Processing Fee. if au elect la make peymants by cheek, thare will be $15 processing fee by payment.
You ara not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or signed a
borrower membership agreement.
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 500
Sant cisco, CA 94195, USA,
© Home
© AboutUs
° Careers:
Follow us:
® Privacy
© Bisks
© Daveloners:
+ Agreamen's,
. Terms
of Use.
* Statistics
+ View Fullsite
© Copyright 2005-2045. All ights reserved. Equal Housing Lender
borrowerintent
(c_laswit02-prod
a
ee pass ise
SaSSS= SES ————
——=
if whe Seas
DECLARATION OF VENUE
ee ¥
I, the undersigned, declare: i
s
1 Tam on of the attorneys fer Bicler in this action.
2 The above-entitled action is subject to the provisio €ode of Civil
Procedure Sectica 395(b).
3 Upon information and belief, venue for this action is proper in the above-
entitled Court because ai the commencement of this action, one or more of the named
Defendants resided in this Judicial District.
4 ff called as a witness, I would competently so testify.
10 (declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
1 foregoing is true and correct.
2 7
13 Bxedi on SEP 07 206 ‘at Sherman Oaks, California.
14
15 iW OFFICE OF RoRY W. CLARK,
: PROFESSIONAL Law CORPORATION
16
17
ALI FAR:
18 Attormeys fdr jaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
~6-
25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
Velocity Investments LLC
Litigation Policy
Litigation Policy V0.1
1.0 Version Control Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 Review and Approval Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2 Revisions Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.0 Policy Scope Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Definitions
2.2 Overview
3.0 Obligations
3.1 Policy
4.0 Responsibilities & People
Litigation Policy V0.1
1.0 Version Control
All Velocity Policies & Procedures are reviewed annually as a minimum, amendments are reviewed as
part of quality assurance and approved by management.
1.1 Review and Approval
Management Approval
Approver Name Approver Title Version
Pete Ragan CCO, VP & Counsel 03/07/2019 v0.1
1.2 Revisions
Description of Change Version
Richard Marshall Creation of document 01/30/2019 v0.1
Richard Marshall Document Approval 03/07/2019 v1.0
2.0 Policy Scope
This policy is mandatory and applies to all employees of Velocity (whether full time, part time,
permanent or temporary.
This policy sets out the procedures which must be followed to enable velocity to comply with legal
obligations as well as obligations to its current clients under contracts. Occasionally clients may require
additional standards to be observed in order to meet their internal policy standards and where this is
the case Velocity will mirror these standards in addition to our own internal policy requirements.
2.1 Definitions
Litigation refers to the process of resolving disputes by filing or answering a complaint through the
public court system.
In federal courts, litigation is governed by a number of federal rules: The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These are supplemented
by the local rules of each court and the standing orders of judges.
2.2 Overview
Velocity does not purchase accounts where there is no availability of documentation. Velocity conducts
a pre-suit assessment on the availability of evidence/documentation for suit prior to referring any
account to law firms in its legal network. Velocity maintains a 50-state matrix of documents that are
required in each jurisdiction and uses this matrix to determine whether an account is suit eligible based
on available documentation.
3.0 Obligations
Velocity maintains that all the company’s practices preclude any use of unconscionable, false, deceptive,
or misleading means. Conduct that is considered abusive or oppressive is not tolerated and will be
treated as a harsh violation of both company policy and the law, in general.
Litigation Policy V0.1
3.1 Policy
Once an account is determined to be suit eligible based on available documentation, Velocity then
conducts a proprietary quantitative due diligence review on each account to determine whether an
obligor can pay and that it is suit worthy.
Such analysis includes a review of:
Balance size
Credit history
Transunion legal collectability score
Homeownership
Open lines of credit
Employment history
Requirements of jurisdiction
Applicable Statute of limitations
All accounts receive an initial demand letter. At 35 days, Velocity sends a second letterto specific
accounts that qualify for legal treatment and are suit worthy informing the consumer that the account
will be sent to a law firm. Velocity initiates litigation against an obligor to collect an Account only if it can
determine that all the following conditions are met:
Velocity has the following information in its possession to support Velocity’s pleadings in litigation:
(1) original account level documentation reflecting, at a minimum, (i) the obligor’s name, (ii) the last four
digits of the account number associated with the debt at the time of charge off, (iii) the outstanding
amount (excluding any post charge-off payments)
(2) a complete chain of title of all prior owners of debt, including a certified or properly authenticated
bill of sale evidencing transfer of ownership, including a reference to the specific debt being collected
upon
(3) Either (i) a document signed by the obligor evidencing the opening of the account or (2) last pay
statement or other statement reflecting actual use by the obligor.
All litigation filed by Velocity is filed in good faith without Velocity’s intent to dismiss due to an Obligor
contesting the case.
Velocity has attempted to contact the Obligor by (i) (1) sending a minimum of two written notices to the
Obligor at the last known address and (2) attempted a minimum of one call to the Obligor at the last
known telephone number(s) and, if both (i)(1) and (i)(2) were unsuccessful, then (ii) Velocity has
attempted at least one skip trace event for both an address and a telephone number for the Obligor and
reattempted (i)(1) and (i)(2) with the newly-acquired skip traced information prior to placement with a
collection law firm.
Velocity has determined that (i) the Obligor is employed and/or has assets, or (ii) there is a reasonably
high probability that the Obligor is employed and/or has assets based upon the use of a supportable and
empirical scoring tool (Transunion).
Litigation Policy V0.1
After an additional 35 days, Velocity then refers such accounts to the specified law firm in the relevant
jurisdiction. Velocity outsources the legal collection process to individual third-party law firms based on
specific guidelines established by senior management and set forth in a third-party servicing contract.
Each third-party law firm is a member of the National Association of Retail Collection attorney, carries
the requisite E&O insurance, is a member of an industry law list with an accredited bond, has
compatible information technology systems and earns its servicing fee on a contingency basis.
Upon receipt, attorneys are required to follow the work flow procedures set forth in the Third-Party
network servicing agreement, which requires “meaningful review” of each account by a licensed
attorney. Attorneys utilized by Velocity are expected to then retain further “on the ground” decision
making authority on whether to place an account in suit that Velocity has referred for litigation.
Velocity always maintains fair and reasonable litigation practices. Any false, deceptive, unconscionable
acts such as misleading representations or means; or behavior that would be considered harassment or
abuse; is taken extremely seriously and is considered unacceptable in any manner.
Velocity will never initiate a Legal Collection lawsuit unless in possession of the following:
Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting, at a minimum, the Consumer’s name, the last
four digits of the account number associated with the Debt at the time of Charge-off, the
claimed amount, excluding any post Charge-off payments (unless the claimed amount is higher
that the Charge-off Balance, in which case Velocity must possess (i) Original Account-Level
Documentation reflecting the Charge-off Balance and (ii) an explanation of how the claimed
amount was calculated and why such increase is authorized by the agreement creating the Debt
or permitted by law), and if Velocity is suing under a breach of contract theory, the contractual
terms and conditions applicable to the Debt;
A chronological listing of the names of all prior owners of the Debt and the date of each transfer
of ownership of the Debt, beginning with the name of the Creditor at the time of Charge-off;
A certified or otherwise properly authenticated copy of each bill of sale or other document
evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt at the time of Charge-off to each successive
owner, including Velocity. Each of the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership of the
Debt must include a specific reference to the particular Debt being collected upon; and
Any one of the following;
A document signed by the Consumer evidencing the opening of the account forming the
basis for the Debt; or
Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting a purchase, payment, or other actual
use of the account by the Consumer.
“Original Account-Level Documentation”
Any documentation that a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent such as a servicer provided
to a Consumer about a Debt;
A complete transactional history of a Debt, created by a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent
(such as a servicer); or
A copy of a judgment awarded to a Creditor or entered on or before the Effective Date.
Litigation Policy V0.1
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC.
VELOCITY
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC:
Litigation Policy
- January 2018 -
Version 3.5.5
Created by: James Mastriani
Reviewed by: Pete Ragan
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC.
Litigation Policy
Velocity does not purchase accounts where there is no availability of original account level
documentation. Velocity conducts a pre suit assessment on the availability of
evidence/documentation for suit prior to referring any account to pre-legal agencies or law firms
in its legal network. Velocity maintains a 50 state matrix of documents that are required in each
jurisdiction, and uses this matrix to determine whether an account is suit eligible based on
available documentation.
Velocity maintains that all of the company’s pre-litigation and litigation practices preclude any
use of unconscionable, false, deceptive, or misleading means. Conduct that is considered abusive
or oppressive is not tolerated, and will be treated as a harsh violation of both company policy and
the law, in general.
Once an account is determined to be suit eligible based on available documentation, Velocity then
conducts a proprietary quantitative due diligence review on each account to determine whether an
obligor has the ability to pay and that it is suit worthy.
Such analysis includes a review of:
Balance size;
Credit history including derogatory information and history of bankruptcy;
Transunion legal collectability score;
Homeownership;
Open lines of credit;
Amount and number of trades in current month;
Employment history;
Particular requirements of jurisdiction;
Applicable Statute of limitations;
All accounts receive an initial demand letter. Velocity or one of its pre-legal agencies will also
send a second letter to specific accounts that qualify for legal treatment and are suit worthy
informing the consumer that the account will be sent to a law firm. Velocity initiates litigation
against an obligor to collect an Account only if it can determine that all of the following
Velocity has the following information in its possession to support Velocity’s pleadings in
litigation: (1) original account level documentation reflecting, at a minimum, (i) the obligor’s
name, (ii) the last four digits of the account number associated with the debt at the time of
charge off, (iii) the outstanding amount (excluding any post charge-off payments); (2) a
complete chain of title of all prior owners of debt, including a certified or properly authenticated
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC.
bill of sale evidencing transfer of ownership, including a reference to the specific debt being
collected upon; and (3) Either (i) a document signed by the obligor evidencing the opening of
the account or (2) last pay statement or other statement reflecting actual use by the obligor.
All litigation filed by Velocity is filed in good faith without V elocity’s intent to dismiss due to
an Obligor contesting the case;
Velocity has attempted to contact the Obligor by (i) (1) sending a minimum of two written
notices to the Obligor at the last known address and (2) attempted a minimum of one call to the
Obligor at the last known telephone number(s) and, if both (i)(1) and (i)(2) were unsuccessful,
then (ii) Velocity has attempted at least one skip trace event for both an address and a telephone
number for the Obligor and reattempted (i)(1) and (i)(2) with the newly-acquired skiptraced
information prior to placement with a collection law firm; and
Velocity has determined that (i) the Obligor is employed and/or has assets, or (ii) there is a
reasonably high probability that the Obligor is employed and/or has assets based upon the use of
a supportable and empirical scoring tool (see above criteria).
After a primary agency or internal placement, accounts are reviewed for legal qualification by
Velocity management.
All accounts that qualify for legal treatment are placed with a pre-legal agency fora 90-day
placement during which the agency sends the consumer a pre-ligation letter. If the account is not
resolved during the pre-legal placement, Velocity then refers such accounts to the specified law
firm in the relevant jurisdiction. Velocity outsources the legal collection process to individual
third party law firms based on specific guidelines established by senior management and set forth
in a third-party servicing contract. Each third-party law firm is a member of the National
Association of Retail Collection attomeys; carries the requisite E&O insurance, is a member of
an industry law list with an accredited bond, has compatible information technology systems and
earns its servicing fee on a contingency basis.
Upon receipt, attomeys are required to follow the work flow procedures set forth in the Third
Party network servicing agreement, which requires “meaningful review” of each account by a
licensed attorney. Attorneys utilized by Velocity are expected to then retain further “on the
ground” decision making authority on whether to place an account in suit that Velocity has
referred for litigation.
Velocity always maintains fair and reasonable litigation practices. Any false, deceptive,
unconscionable acts such as misleading representations or means; or behavior that would be
considered harassment or abuse; is taken extremely seriously, and is considered unacceptable in
any manner.
Velocity will never initiate a Legal Collection lawsuit unless in possession of the following:
Original Account-L
evel Documentation reflecting, at a minimum, the Consumer's
PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC.
name, the last four digits of the account number associated with the Debt at the
time of Charge-off, the claimed amount, excluding any post Charge-off payments
(unless the claimed amount is higher that the Charge-off Balance, in which case
Velocity must possess (i) Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting the
Charge-off Balance and (ii) an explanation of how the claimed amount was
calculated and why such increase is authorized by the agreement creating the Debt
or permitted by law), and if Velocity is suing under a breach of contract theory,
the contractual terms and conditions applicable to the Debt;
A chronological listing of the names of all prior owners of the Debt and the date
of each transfer of ownership of the Debt, beginning with the name of the
Creditor at the time of Charge-off;
A certified or otherwise properly authenticated copy of each bill of sale or other
document evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt at the time of Charge-
off to each successive owner, including Velocity. Each of the documents
evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt must include a specific reference
to the particular Debt being collected upon; and
Any one of the following;
A document signed by the Consumer evidencing the opening of the
account forming the basis for the Debt; or
Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting a purchase, payment, or
other actual use of the account by the Consumer.
“Original Account Level Documentation”
Any documentation that a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent
such as a servicer provided to a Consumer about a Debt;
A complete transactional history of a Debt, created by a
Creditor or that Creditor’s agent (such as a servicer); or
A copy of ajudgment awarded to a Creditor or entered on
or before the Effective Date.
23. File Opening, Pre-Suit Review & Initial Demands
To ensure meaningful review and quality control, each and every file that is opened is reviewed
by two parties, first a Velocity Analyst and then the Servicing Manager. The initial review
consists of checking the type of account, interest rate being charged, statute of limitations,
s address, bankruptcy, litigant alert, military and death search through NACN,
WEBRECON litigant alert, media if available at the time of opening and the balance due on each
file. A file will fail this review if it is outside the applicable statute of limitations, the interest rate
is usury, media is not proper, the file type is one which is not acceptable to Velocity, has an out
of state address, the balance is incorrect or incalculable, or if the balance size is not within
Velocitys parameters. If a file fails this initial review , the file is retuned to the client without
any further action by Velocity towards the debtor. Velocity staff are educated and informed with
regard to the exigent nature of a Debtor entering into the military. All files are checked with the
Department of Defense for military service at the time the file is opened. The file is also
reviewed for any outstanding disputes with a debtor which has not been resolved.
Once the initial review is completed, the import spreadsheet is provided to the Servicing
Manager along with the initial file provided from the seller. The second review is accomplished
by verifying the import spreadsheet against the seller spreadsheet. Once this review is completed
and approved, the Servicing Manager will approve and email the Analyst to open files and
import into Velocity s system. Once imported, demands are merged. On small count portfolios
of 1000 accounts or less, the demand letters are printed and stuffed at Velocity s offices and then
hand delivered to the post office. On large count portfolios, of 1000 accounts or more, Velocity
delivers the merged file in an encrypted file to a third party letter vendor, who then prints (not re-
merge) letters and mails them directly with the post office.
In the event that a file is referred to a third party servicer, it is done by way of a direct referral
through our electronic data interchange or by way of a spreadsheet, which is run from our
system. The file is scheduled for the filing of a law suit and is stamped with code x431.
Assuming that the client so desires, and that the defendant's address is valid and the account is
not in a payment arrangement, It is Velocity’s intent to file suit within 45 days of placement.
Both of these methods ensure that the data which is sold to Velocity remains the same through
our office to our servicer.
Velocity does not charge post charge off interest on any accounts from the point that the file is
opened thr
Preview
JUSTIN PENN (SBN CA jpenn@ hinshawlaw.com SARA E. FRANKS (SBN 345940) sfranks@ hinshawlaw.com HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3402 Telephone: 213-680-2800 Facsimile: 213-614-7399 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross-Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC Case No. CV3 Plaintiff Assigned to: Dept. 19, The Honorable Theodore C. Zayner vs. COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY MARIA CANUL, EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CROSS DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO Defendant CROSS COMPLAINANT MARIA MOTION FOR SUMMARY UDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION MARIA CANUL Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Cross-Complainant, Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence, Declaration vs. of Deanna SgroRequest for Judicial Notice, concurrently filed herewith.] VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a New ersey limited liability company; VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Date: October 25, 2023 corporation; and ROES 2 through 10, inclusive, Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 19 Cross Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 20, 2016 Cross-Complaint Filed: February 19, 2019 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE tos Arges, CA 9071 1045141 314832004.v1 Pursuant to Califommia Rule of Court 3.1350(g), Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) hereby submit the following Compendium of Documentary Evidence in support of their Opposition to Cross-Complainant Maria Canul Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication. Each of the following Exhibits is attached. Further, these Exhibits are authenticated by the following Declaration of Justin M. Penn. TABLE OF CONTENTS Description of Documentary Evidence Exhibit Velocity Investment, LLC’s September 20, 2016 Complaint for Money Velocity Investments LLC Litigation Policy Velocity’s 2018 Litigation Policy Velocity Vendor Management Policy Velocity Investments, LLC’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One Relevant Excerpts from the Deposition of Cross-Complainant Maria Canul Cross-Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment September 21, 2023 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 20CV 373916. DATED: September 27 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP By /s/ Justin M. Penn Justin M. Penn Sara E. Franks Attomeys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Velocity Investments, LLC and Cross- Defendant Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE tos Arges, CA 9071 1045141 314832004.v1 DECLARATION OF JUSTIN M. PENN I, JUSTIN M. PENN, hereby declare as follows: 1 I am an attomey duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and am a partner with the law firm, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, attorneys of record herein for Cross Defendants Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and Velocity Portfolio Group, Inc. (collectively, “Cross Defendants”) and submit this declaration in support of Cross Defendants’ Opposition to Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I am familiar with the facts t forth herein and can competently testify to them if required to do so. 2 I am familiar with all the discovery materials in this action. I have analyzed the allegations in Cross-Complainant’s First Amended Class Action Cross-Complaint and reviewed materials, including the records produced by all parties, discovery responses served by counsel, and court filings in this action. 3 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Velocity Investment, LLC’s September 20, 2016 Complaint for Money. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s Velocity Investments LLC Litigation Policy. Exhibit B can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY - CANUL000076-000081. 5 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s 2018 Litigation Policy. Exhibit C can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY -CANUL-000082- 6 Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Velocity’s Velocity Vendor Management Policy. Exhibit D can be identified by Bates Nos. VELOCITY - CANUL000104-000107. 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Velocity Investments, LLC’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One 8 Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of relevant excerpts of the Deposition of Cross-Complainant Maria Canul. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE tos Arges, CA 9071 1045141 314832004.v1 Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Cross-Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed in this Court on July 21, 2023. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the September 21, 2023 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 20CV 373916. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Chicago, Illinois /s/ Justin M. Pen L a Justin M. Penn HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 380 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 ROSS-DEFENDANTS’ COMPENDIUM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE tos Arges, CA 9071 1045141 314832004.v1 EXHIBIT “A” ENDOR SED MATTHEW J. KUMAR, ESQ. Bar No. 283521 ALI FARZIN, ESQ. Bar No. 278564 LAW OFFICE OF RORY W. CLARK, 2H SEP 20 A & Su A Professional Law Corporation Fs 14900 Magnolia Blyd. #55997 PHaLOn tes ie Sherroan Oaks, CA 91403 ey. Attomeys for Plaintiff Internal File No. ¥1500062 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,SANTA CLARA “LIMITED CIVIL" VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC. CASE NO. LTECTSOO096 WW Plaintiff, 12 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY: vs OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT, AND 13 MONEY LENT, MARIA CANUL, (COMMON COUNTS}; DECLARATION and DOES J through X, inclusive, 15 DEMAND AMOUN Defendants. $4,792.17 16 17 PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §1692g AND CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1788.17, 18 UNLESS YOU, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE, DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, 19 THE DEBT WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE VALID BY THIS DEBT COLLECTOR. IF YOU NOTIFY THIS DEBT COLLECTOR IN WRITING. 20 WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD THAT THE DEBT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IS DISPUTED, THIS DEBT COLLECTOR WILL OBTAIN 21 VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT OR A COPY OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU AND A COPY OF SUCH VERHMCATION OR JUDGMENT WILL BE 22 MAILED TG YOU BY THIS DEBT COLLECTOR. UPON YOUR WRITTEN REQUEST WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD, THIS DEBT COLLECTOR 23 WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR, IF DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT CREDITOR. 24 el 25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (>Glihe THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED MAY BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACF AND THE FEDERAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT REQUIRE THAT, EXCEPT UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, COLLECTORS MAY NOT CONTACT YOU BEFORE 8 A.M. OR AFTER 9 P.M. THEY MAY NOT HARASS YOU BY USING THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR ARREST OR BY USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE. COLLECTORS MAY NOT USE FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS OR CALL YOU AT WORK IF THEY KNOW OR HAVE REASON TO KNOW THAT YOU MAY NOT RECEIVE PERSONAL’ CALLS AT WORK. FOR THE MOST PART, COLLECTORS MAY NOT TELL ANOTHER PERSON, OTHER THAN YOUR ATTORNEY OR SPOUSE, ABOUT YOUR DEBT. COLLECTORS MAY CONTACT ANOTHER PERSON TO CONFIRM YOUR LOCATION OR ENFORCE A JUDGMENT. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT 10 COLLECTION ACTIVITIES, YOU MAY CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AT 1-877-FTC-HELPeseneentien OR WWW.FEC.GOV. i Plaintiff, VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges against Defendants, MARIA 12 CANUL and DOES I thri: X, inclusive, (“Defendant”) as follows: 13 L That Plaintiff is now and was at all times mentioned a Limited Liability Company 4 authorized to do and engaged in doing business in the State of California. 15 2. That Defendant is a natural person currently residing in the State of California, ta 16 whom Plaintiff's assignor extended credit. li a ‘That the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 18 otherwise, of the defendants named in this action as DOES I through X, inclugiy vn to 19 Plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintifé wil end this 20. Complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained: Plaintiff is 21 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitionsly named defendants is 22 23 24 Be 25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs damages as herein alieged were proximately caused by their conduct. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§1788.50-1788.64 4 Plaintiff on or after January 1, 2014, purchased a consumer credit account that is the basis of this action. The purchase of said debt is thereby subject to Civil Code $§1788,.50-1788.64. PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1788.58(a): (1) Plaintiffis a debt buyer. (2} LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION issued and/or serviced a loan for funds on behalfof Defendant to be electronically transferred to the bank account of Defendant's choosing. Plaintiff 10 alleges on information and belief, Defendant accessed those funds and used, or otherwise authorized it its use, for the acquisition of goods, services, balance transfers, and/or other cash withdrawals. 12 During that time, Defendant had access to review and view detailed aciivity of the account, the 13 balance due, any accrual of fees, interest, payments, and/or the application of each of those items for 14 the account. Defendant then failed to make the regular payments whea due thereby causing a default 18 in the repayment of the account. Thereafter, Plaintiff then received all of the rights, tifles to, and 16 interest in said credit account. 17 (3) Plaintiffis now the sole owner of the debt at issue, or has the authorityto assert the rights 18 of all owners of the debi. 19 (A) The debt balance at charge-off was $4,792.17. Plaintiff does not seek or add any post- 20 charge-off interest or fees. thelast-paym! orabou: seks a aS ——S 23 3. 25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (6) The name and an address of the charge-off creditor at the time of charge-off is: LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, 71 Stevenson St. Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105. The charge-off creditor's account number associated with the debt is KXX2945. 4 (7) The name and Jasi known address of the Defendant as they appeared in the charge-off creditor's records prior to the sale of the debt is: MARIA.CANUL 35 S. LSTH ST. #2 SAN JOSE, CA 95112. (8) The names and addresses of ail persons or entities that purchased the debt ater charge- off are as follows: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, PO BOX 788 WALL, NI 07719. (9) Plaintiff has complied with California Civil Code § 1788.52. 10 > Attached hereto and incorporated herein as Ex] is a copy of the document Ll described in California Civil Code § 1788.52(b). 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 13 (Open Book Accouat - as to ail Defendants) i4 6. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of 15 Paragraphs 1 through 5, inclusive. 4 16 v That within the last four years, LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION and Defendant 7 established an Open Book Account for accountnumber XXX2945 arising from 4written agreement. 18 Said Open Book Account reflected-all debits and credits in connection with the aforementioned 19 account, and was kept in permanent form in the regular course of business by LENDINGCLUB 20 CORPORATION. As of its final entry, said Open Book Account provided that Defendant was idebted:t ae Ss (if scassi gnor ST in: thewunro€Ste7 99 ie Pesymments/ered eine the amonntof$0. 00: eas 22 have since been posted to the subject account, leaving a total outstanding principal balance due of 23 $4,792.17. 4A 25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY SECOND CAUSE OF QMoney Lent - as to sill 8 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of Paragraphs | tro Ay 9. That: the past four years. nt became indebted to Plaintiff's assignor ior money ibsiibstsaves dant athis/her equest, and which Defendant agreed to repay. Defendant received funds from Plaintii#’s assignor, but did not repay as promised. Defeadant has retained the sums rightfully belonging to Plaintiff's assignor in the amount y eh of $4,792.17. Although demand has been made, faim has been paid except for the amount of $0.00, representing a paymentor regi On 2 ) vk ‘account. This results in a total ie 3S Ni ; outstanding principal balauce due of $4,792.17." auld rds 1] WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows: 12 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: 13 Principal in the sum of $4,792.17; 14 Costs of suit incurred in this action; and 15 ach other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 16 17 Law OFFICE oF Rory W. Cuark, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ft 18 19 ALIFAI 20 Attomeys hha 23 21 23 24 3- COMPLAINT FOR MONEY xe This website does not supsortshis versionof ternal E¥plorer. Plsase upgradete the latest version for a beller axpetience, Usorade Lending Clud Utilities, * Welcome Antaone! ® Acsount * Settings » Sion Out ® Help © View Full Sits, > lcwesting * PersonalLoans © EWorks How + AboutUs Truth in Lending Disclosure Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement Lender WebBank 6440 South Wasatch Bouleverc Suita 200 SaltLake City, UT84121 Borrower Matia CANUL 35s, 15th st 42 San dose,CA $5112 Annual Percerlage Rats ‘The cost of your ereditas a yearly rate 12.58% Finance Charge The dollar amount tie credit yall cost you $2,964(e) Amount Financed: The amount of credit oravided io you or an your behatl $14,400(e} Total of Payments The amount you will have oaid when you hava made all scheduled paymenis #17.366(6) our pe ent schedule will be as follows: \Nutriberof Asnount When payments are due “peyinents (e) $4382.32 First payment is due on 7/42/12, and each subsequent paymentis due monthly therealter on the same day of each moni a _-._.-.-.$482.80._Last paymentis dub on 6112/15 = fee ise tsb sae Late charges: IF your payment anives aller your15 day grecs period, you will be charged a late fee eauial to the greater of: 3.00% of hs lle payment amount or $18. This fee's charged orly ence per le payment. Prepayment policy: # you pay off your loanin athanse, yols ill not be charged a penally, Inthe event of a prepayment. you til not be aniitled to a refund of any pre-pald finance chergés of other fees, See your borrewérmembership and loan agreements for any additional information about nanpayment, default, or other matters ralatad fo your loan. (e) means estimate PYHIRIT A hems marked (¢} will decrsase if you receive fess than 190% funding. Regardiess of the ultimate amount of the loan, your APR will not change. Subjectto your right to cancel, any unsecured loan will issue if It is at least 60% funded by the end of the listing period, Total Amount Requesied: $15,000.00 LendingClud Fees: $600.00 Total Amount Received: $14,400.03 Unsuccessful payment fee. When @ payment fails ard is rejected by your bank, you wil be charged an Unsuccessful Payment Fee of 315 to cover the cost Lending Club incurs on the transection. Each attempt to collect e montity payment is considered a separale transaction, so an Unsuccessiul Payment Fee will bs assessed for each falled attempt. Check Processing Fee. if au elect la make peymants by cheek, thare will be $15 processing fee by payment. You ara not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or signed a borrower membership agreement. 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 500 Sant cisco, CA 94195, USA, © Home © AboutUs ° Careers: Follow us: ® Privacy © Bisks © Daveloners: + Agreamen's, . Terms of Use. * Statistics + View Fullsite © Copyright 2005-2045. All ights reserved. Equal Housing Lender borrowerintent (c_laswit02-prod a ee pass ise SaSSS= SES ———— ——= if whe Seas DECLARATION OF VENUE ee ¥ I, the undersigned, declare: i s 1 Tam on of the attorneys fer Bicler in this action. 2 The above-entitled action is subject to the provisio €ode of Civil Procedure Sectica 395(b). 3 Upon information and belief, venue for this action is proper in the above- entitled Court because ai the commencement of this action, one or more of the named Defendants resided in this Judicial District. 4 ff called as a witness, I would competently so testify. 10 (declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 1 foregoing is true and correct. 2 7 13 Bxedi on SEP 07 206 ‘at Sherman Oaks, California. 14 15 iW OFFICE OF RoRY W. CLARK, : PROFESSIONAL Law CORPORATION 16 17 ALI FAR: 18 Attormeys fdr jaintiff 19 20 21 22 23 ~6- 25 COMPLAINT FOR MONEY Velocity Investments LLC Litigation Policy Litigation Policy V0.1 1.0 Version Control Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Review and Approval Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Revisions Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.0 Policy Scope Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1 Definitions 2.2 Overview 3.0 Obligations 3.1 Policy 4.0 Responsibilities & People Litigation Policy V0.1 1.0 Version Control All Velocity Policies & Procedures are reviewed annually as a minimum, amendments are reviewed as part of quality assurance and approved by management. 1.1 Review and Approval Management Approval Approver Name Approver Title Version Pete Ragan CCO, VP & Counsel 03/07/2019 v0.1 1.2 Revisions Description of Change Version Richard Marshall Creation of document 01/30/2019 v0.1 Richard Marshall Document Approval 03/07/2019 v1.0 2.0 Policy Scope This policy is mandatory and applies to all employees of Velocity (whether full time, part time, permanent or temporary. This policy sets out the procedures which must be followed to enable velocity to comply with legal obligations as well as obligations to its current clients under contracts. Occasionally clients may require additional standards to be observed in order to meet their internal policy standards and where this is the case Velocity will mirror these standards in addition to our own internal policy requirements. 2.1 Definitions Litigation refers to the process of resolving disputes by filing or answering a complaint through the public court system. In federal courts, litigation is governed by a number of federal rules: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These are supplemented by the local rules of each court and the standing orders of judges. 2.2 Overview Velocity does not purchase accounts where there is no availability of documentation. Velocity conducts a pre-suit assessment on the availability of evidence/documentation for suit prior to referring any account to law firms in its legal network. Velocity maintains a 50-state matrix of documents that are required in each jurisdiction and uses this matrix to determine whether an account is suit eligible based on available documentation. 3.0 Obligations Velocity maintains that all the company’s practices preclude any use of unconscionable, false, deceptive, or misleading means. Conduct that is considered abusive or oppressive is not tolerated and will be treated as a harsh violation of both company policy and the law, in general. Litigation Policy V0.1 3.1 Policy Once an account is determined to be suit eligible based on available documentation, Velocity then conducts a proprietary quantitative due diligence review on each account to determine whether an obligor can pay and that it is suit worthy. Such analysis includes a review of: Balance size Credit history Transunion legal collectability score Homeownership Open lines of credit Employment history Requirements of jurisdiction Applicable Statute of limitations All accounts receive an initial demand letter. At 35 days, Velocity sends a second letterto specific accounts that qualify for legal treatment and are suit worthy informing the consumer that the account will be sent to a law firm. Velocity initiates litigation against an obligor to collect an Account only if it can determine that all the following conditions are met: Velocity has the following information in its possession to support Velocity’s pleadings in litigation: (1) original account level documentation reflecting, at a minimum, (i) the obligor’s name, (ii) the last four digits of the account number associated with the debt at the time of charge off, (iii) the outstanding amount (excluding any post charge-off payments) (2) a complete chain of title of all prior owners of debt, including a certified or properly authenticated bill of sale evidencing transfer of ownership, including a reference to the specific debt being collected upon (3) Either (i) a document signed by the obligor evidencing the opening of the account or (2) last pay statement or other statement reflecting actual use by the obligor. All litigation filed by Velocity is filed in good faith without Velocity’s intent to dismiss due to an Obligor contesting the case. Velocity has attempted to contact the Obligor by (i) (1) sending a minimum of two written notices to the Obligor at the last known address and (2) attempted a minimum of one call to the Obligor at the last known telephone number(s) and, if both (i)(1) and (i)(2) were unsuccessful, then (ii) Velocity has attempted at least one skip trace event for both an address and a telephone number for the Obligor and reattempted (i)(1) and (i)(2) with the newly-acquired skip traced information prior to placement with a collection law firm. Velocity has determined that (i) the Obligor is employed and/or has assets, or (ii) there is a reasonably high probability that the Obligor is employed and/or has assets based upon the use of a supportable and empirical scoring tool (Transunion). Litigation Policy V0.1 After an additional 35 days, Velocity then refers such accounts to the specified law firm in the relevant jurisdiction. Velocity outsources the legal collection process to individual third-party law firms based on specific guidelines established by senior management and set forth in a third-party servicing contract. Each third-party law firm is a member of the National Association of Retail Collection attorney, carries the requisite E&O insurance, is a member of an industry law list with an accredited bond, has compatible information technology systems and earns its servicing fee on a contingency basis. Upon receipt, attorneys are required to follow the work flow procedures set forth in the Third-Party network servicing agreement, which requires “meaningful review” of each account by a licensed attorney. Attorneys utilized by Velocity are expected to then retain further “on the ground” decision making authority on whether to place an account in suit that Velocity has referred for litigation. Velocity always maintains fair and reasonable litigation practices. Any false, deceptive, unconscionable acts such as misleading representations or means; or behavior that would be considered harassment or abuse; is taken extremely seriously and is considered unacceptable in any manner. Velocity will never initiate a Legal Collection lawsuit unless in possession of the following: Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting, at a minimum, the Consumer’s name, the last four digits of the account number associated with the Debt at the time of Charge-off, the claimed amount, excluding any post Charge-off payments (unless the claimed amount is higher that the Charge-off Balance, in which case Velocity must possess (i) Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting the Charge-off Balance and (ii) an explanation of how the claimed amount was calculated and why such increase is authorized by the agreement creating the Debt or permitted by law), and if Velocity is suing under a breach of contract theory, the contractual terms and conditions applicable to the Debt; A chronological listing of the names of all prior owners of the Debt and the date of each transfer of ownership of the Debt, beginning with the name of the Creditor at the time of Charge-off; A certified or otherwise properly authenticated copy of each bill of sale or other document evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt at the time of Charge-off to each successive owner, including Velocity. Each of the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt must include a specific reference to the particular Debt being collected upon; and Any one of the following; A document signed by the Consumer evidencing the opening of the account forming the basis for the Debt; or Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting a purchase, payment, or other actual use of the account by the Consumer. “Original Account-Level Documentation” Any documentation that a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent such as a servicer provided to a Consumer about a Debt; A complete transactional history of a Debt, created by a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent (such as a servicer); or A copy of a judgment awarded to a Creditor or entered on or before the Effective Date. Litigation Policy V0.1 PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. VELOCITY PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC: Litigation Policy - January 2018 - Version 3.5.5 Created by: James Mastriani Reviewed by: Pete Ragan PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. Litigation Policy Velocity does not purchase accounts where there is no availability of original account level documentation. Velocity conducts a pre suit assessment on the availability of evidence/documentation for suit prior to referring any account to pre-legal agencies or law firms in its legal network. Velocity maintains a 50 state matrix of documents that are required in each jurisdiction, and uses this matrix to determine whether an account is suit eligible based on available documentation. Velocity maintains that all of the company’s pre-litigation and litigation practices preclude any use of unconscionable, false, deceptive, or misleading means. Conduct that is considered abusive or oppressive is not tolerated, and will be treated as a harsh violation of both company policy and the law, in general. Once an account is determined to be suit eligible based on available documentation, Velocity then conducts a proprietary quantitative due diligence review on each account to determine whether an obligor has the ability to pay and that it is suit worthy. Such analysis includes a review of: Balance size; Credit history including derogatory information and history of bankruptcy; Transunion legal collectability score; Homeownership; Open lines of credit; Amount and number of trades in current month; Employment history; Particular requirements of jurisdiction; Applicable Statute of limitations; All accounts receive an initial demand letter. Velocity or one of its pre-legal agencies will also send a second letter to specific accounts that qualify for legal treatment and are suit worthy informing the consumer that the account will be sent to a law firm. Velocity initiates litigation against an obligor to collect an Account only if it can determine that all of the following Velocity has the following information in its possession to support Velocity’s pleadings in litigation: (1) original account level documentation reflecting, at a minimum, (i) the obligor’s name, (ii) the last four digits of the account number associated with the debt at the time of charge off, (iii) the outstanding amount (excluding any post charge-off payments); (2) a complete chain of title of all prior owners of debt, including a certified or properly authenticated PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. bill of sale evidencing transfer of ownership, including a reference to the specific debt being collected upon; and (3) Either (i) a document signed by the obligor evidencing the opening of the account or (2) last pay statement or other statement reflecting actual use by the obligor. All litigation filed by Velocity is filed in good faith without V elocity’s intent to dismiss due to an Obligor contesting the case; Velocity has attempted to contact the Obligor by (i) (1) sending a minimum of two written notices to the Obligor at the last known address and (2) attempted a minimum of one call to the Obligor at the last known telephone number(s) and, if both (i)(1) and (i)(2) were unsuccessful, then (ii) Velocity has attempted at least one skip trace event for both an address and a telephone number for the Obligor and reattempted (i)(1) and (i)(2) with the newly-acquired skiptraced information prior to placement with a collection law firm; and Velocity has determined that (i) the Obligor is employed and/or has assets, or (ii) there is a reasonably high probability that the Obligor is employed and/or has assets based upon the use of a supportable and empirical scoring tool (see above criteria). After a primary agency or internal placement, accounts are reviewed for legal qualification by Velocity management. All accounts that qualify for legal treatment are placed with a pre-legal agency fora 90-day placement during which the agency sends the consumer a pre-ligation letter. If the account is not resolved during the pre-legal placement, Velocity then refers such accounts to the specified law firm in the relevant jurisdiction. Velocity outsources the legal collection process to individual third party law firms based on specific guidelines established by senior management and set forth in a third-party servicing contract. Each third-party law firm is a member of the National Association of Retail Collection attomeys; carries the requisite E&O insurance, is a member of an industry law list with an accredited bond, has compatible information technology systems and earns its servicing fee on a contingency basis. Upon receipt, attomeys are required to follow the work flow procedures set forth in the Third Party network servicing agreement, which requires “meaningful review” of each account by a licensed attorney. Attorneys utilized by Velocity are expected to then retain further “on the ground” decision making authority on whether to place an account in suit that Velocity has referred for litigation. Velocity always maintains fair and reasonable litigation practices. Any false, deceptive, unconscionable acts such as misleading representations or means; or behavior that would be considered harassment or abuse; is taken extremely seriously, and is considered unacceptable in any manner. Velocity will never initiate a Legal Collection lawsuit unless in possession of the following: Original Account-L evel Documentation reflecting, at a minimum, the Consumer's PORTFOLIO GROUP, INC. name, the last four digits of the account number associated with the Debt at the time of Charge-off, the claimed amount, excluding any post Charge-off payments (unless the claimed amount is higher that the Charge-off Balance, in which case Velocity must possess (i) Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting the Charge-off Balance and (ii) an explanation of how the claimed amount was calculated and why such increase is authorized by the agreement creating the Debt or permitted by law), and if Velocity is suing under a breach of contract theory, the contractual terms and conditions applicable to the Debt; A chronological listing of the names of all prior owners of the Debt and the date of each transfer of ownership of the Debt, beginning with the name of the Creditor at the time of Charge-off; A certified or otherwise properly authenticated copy of each bill of sale or other document evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt at the time of Charge- off to each successive owner, including Velocity. Each of the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership of the Debt must include a specific reference to the particular Debt being collected upon; and Any one of the following; A document signed by the Consumer evidencing the opening of the account forming the basis for the Debt; or Original Account-Level Documentation reflecting a purchase, payment, or other actual use of the account by the Consumer. “Original Account Level Documentation” Any documentation that a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent such as a servicer provided to a Consumer about a Debt; A complete transactional history of a Debt, created by a Creditor or that Creditor’s agent (such as a servicer); or A copy of ajudgment awarded to a Creditor or entered on or before the Effective Date. 23. File Opening, Pre-Suit Review & Initial Demands To ensure meaningful review and quality control, each and every file that is opened is reviewed by two parties, first a Velocity Analyst and then the Servicing Manager. The initial review consists of checking the type of account, interest rate being charged, statute of limitations, s address, bankruptcy, litigant alert, military and death search through NACN, WEBRECON litigant alert, media if available at the time of opening and the balance due on each file. A file will fail this review if it is outside the applicable statute of limitations, the interest rate is usury, media is not proper, the file type is one which is not acceptable to Velocity, has an out of state address, the balance is incorrect or incalculable, or if the balance size is not within Velocitys parameters. If a file fails this initial review , the file is retuned to the client without any further action by Velocity towards the debtor. Velocity staff are educated and informed with regard to the exigent nature of a Debtor entering into the military. All files are checked with the Department of Defense for military service at the time the file is opened. The file is also reviewed for any outstanding disputes with a debtor which has not been resolved. Once the initial review is completed, the import spreadsheet is provided to the Servicing Manager along with the initial file provided from the seller. The second review is accomplished by verifying the import spreadsheet against the seller spreadsheet. Once this review is completed and approved, the Servicing Manager will approve and email the Analyst to open files and import into Velocity s system. Once imported, demands are merged. On small count portfolios of 1000 accounts or less, the demand letters are printed and stuffed at Velocity s offices and then hand delivered to the post office. On large count portfolios, of 1000 accounts or more, Velocity delivers the merged file in an encrypted file to a third party letter vendor, who then prints (not re- merge) letters and mails them directly with the post office. In the event that a file is referred to a third party servicer, it is done by way of a direct referral through our electronic data interchange or by way of a spreadsheet, which is run from our system. The file is scheduled for the filing of a law suit and is stamped with code x431. Assuming that the client so desires, and that the defendant's address is valid and the account is not in a payment arrangement, It is Velocity’s intent to file suit within 45 days of placement. Both of these methods ensure that the data which is sold to Velocity remains the same through our office to our servicer. Velocity does not charge post charge off interest on any accounts from the point that the file is opened thr