Read the Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss - MFY Legal Services

Case 1:09-cv-08486-DC Document 58 Filed 12/29/10 Page 6 of 37sued did not appear in court; most defaulted because they werenot actually served. (Id. 11 3-4; see also id. 111 3-4 69, 107) .Sewer service was integral to this scheme. After aconsumer failed to appear in court, the Leucadia and Me1 Harrisdefendants applied for a default judgment by providing the courtwith proof of service; proof of additional mailed notice to theconsumer; an affidavit attesting to whether the consumer was inthe military; and an "affidavit of merit" attesting to theirpersonal knowledge of facts substantiating their legal claims tothe court. (Id. 11 86-90, 108-10).Leucadia had limited proof to substantiate its claimsbecause it typically did not purchase documentation of theconsumers1 indebtedness to the original creditors. (Id. 11 46-50). Nonetheless, the Me1 Harris defendants1 "designatedcustodian of records," Todd Fabacher, signed the vast majority ofthe approximately 40,000 affidavits of merit they filed eachyear. (Id. 11 110-17). Fabacher averred to having personalknowledge of the key facts establishing that the debt in eachcollection action was due and owing. (Id. 1 113). Assuming 260business days a year, Fabacher had to have personally (andpurportedly knowledgeably) issued an average of twenty affidavitsof merit per hour, i.e., one every three minutes, over a