Complaint Against Morning Law Group, P.C. with Jury Demand Filed by Phyllis A. Asher. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons)(Brooks, Maxwell)

Document #1 Filed 03/30/2026 · 17 pages · District Court, M.D. Florida · View original PDF

1Claimant brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., the Florida Credit Services Organization Act (“FCSOA”), pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 817.700 et seq., the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and legal malpractice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.

3This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.

PARTIES

5Claimant is a natural person and consumer, over 18 years-of-age, residing in Sarasota, Florida.

6Respondent is a company that purports to help consumers resolve their debt and improve their credit scores.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7In October 2024, Claimant was facing financial difficulties and had a number of debts prompting her to begin looking for companies who may be able to assist her in maintaining her creditworthiness and resolving her financial obligations.

8Subsequently

thereafter, Claimant discovered Respondent through its

representation that it could help consumers resolve their financial obligations by negotiating with creditors to reduce their outstanding debts and improving their credit.

9Claimant spoke with Respondent and Respondent’s agent represented to Claimant that it would be able to: (1) resolve Claimant’s financial obligations for a significant discount by negotiating with Claimant’s creditors; and (2) improve Claimant’s credit scores.

10Respondent further represented to Claimant that all she would need to do is make monthly payments over a certain period of time and that Respondent would utilize the payments to expeditiously resolve Claimant’s enrolled debts.

11On or around October 11, 2024, having relied on Respondent’s representations, Claimant formally enrolled various debts into Respondent’s debt settlement programs by entering into a contract with Respondent.

12Specifically, Claimant enrolled a total debt amount of approximately $23,545.

13Pursuant to the contract, Claimant was obligated to make monthly payments of approximately $250.

14Claimant proceeded to make her monthly payments to Respondent in a timely manner.

15During the enrollment period, Claimant was repeatedly informed that Respondent was actively communicating with her enrolled creditors to settle outstanding debts.

16Despite Respondent’s assurances, Respondent failed to resolve Claimant’s debts as expeditiously as Respondent represented it would.

17Despite Respondent’s representations, Claimant’s credit score did not improve.

18Claimant signed up for Respondent’s debt settlement and credit improvement services based on its representations that it would negotiate and settle her outstanding debts and remove settled accounts from her consumer credit reports.

19Throughout its dealings with Claimant, Respondent deceptively and misleadingly strung Claimant along, telling her what she wanted to hear in order for her to keep making payments, only to turn around and fail to deliver on the promises and representations that induced Claimant’s continued participation in Respondent’s debt settlement program.

20Furthermore, Respondent repeatedly informed Claimant that it was working on negotiating settlements with her creditors on her behalf.

21However, Respondent chronically failed to engage the vast majority of Claimant’s creditors in settlement discussions, which resulted in Claimant’s creditors hounding Claimant for payments.

22Despite Claimant paying a significant sum into Respondent’s program, Respondent failed to meaningfully (1) engage Claimant’s creditors in settlement discussion, (2) resolve Claimant’s debts, or (3) improve Claimant’s credit score.

23As a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant’s creditors continued to hound Claimant through harassing collection calls and other collection activity.

24After over a year of faithfully making her payments into Respondent’s debt settlement program, Claimant was shocked to learn that the Respondent had failed to resolve her enrolled accounts.

25Claimant grew more frustrated upon discovering that Respondent had allocated a substantial portion of Claimant’s monthly payments toward its own fees, rather than using those funds to settle Claimant’s enrolled accounts.

26As a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant’s credit score has decreased significantly despite Respondent’s assurances that Claimant’s credit score would improve during Respondent’s program.

27Moreover, as a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant was sued by some of the creditors that she enrolled in Respondent’s program, to which Claimant was forced to represent herself.

28Claimant suffered significant damages as result of Respondent’s misrepresentations and omissions, including: financial losses, emotional distress, aggravation, mental anguish, decreased credit score.

29Simply put, Claimant found herself in a much worse financial position after enrolling in Respondent’s “debt settlement” program.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

30Claimant repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

31The transactions giving rise to these claims constitute “trade or commerce” defined by Fla. Stat. § 501.203(8).

32Pursuant to the FDUTPA § 501.204(1), “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

33The provisions of the FDUTPA “shall be construed liberally to . . . protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” See Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).

34Violations of the FDUTPA further consider the rules promulgated in connection with the Federal Trade Commission Act, the standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission or the federal courts, as well as any law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices. See Fla. Stat. § 501.203.

35Respondent violated the FDUTPA by, inter alia, unfairly and deceptively (1) failing to provide debt settlement services to the best of its ability in an effort effectuate reasonable settlements; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Claimant’s interests; (3) representing to Claimant that its program could improve Claimant’s credit when it had knowledge that its program would destroy Claimant’s credit; (4) charging settlement fees that are not authorized by contract and/or statute; (5) withdrawing funds from Claimant’s designated savings account without Claimant’s authorization; (6) misleading Claimant into believing she had full control over

Read the full filing

You’re reading pages 1–5 of 17. Register free to read the complete 17-page transcript on this page.

These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.

Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73114559, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.