Nathanial
D. Kitz – Individual profile of debt collection attorney
Texas-licensed attorney Nathanial D Kitz
is associated with the debt collection law firm RAUSCH, STURM, ISRAEL, ENERSON & HORNIK, LLC, whose offices
are located in Addison, Texas ("RAUSCH"). Kitz appears as attorney
in charge in lawsuits filed on behalf of credit card issuers such as CAPITAL ONE BANK USA N.A. and CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., now CITIBANK, N.A..
Attorney Kitz's Texas bar card number is
24080988
ADDRESS
AND LAW FIRM AFFILIATION OF DEBT COLLECTION ATTORNEY NATHANIAL (not Nathaniel)
KITZ
Nathanial D. Kitz
RAUSCH, STURM, ISRAEL, ENERSON &
HORNIK, LLC ("RSIEH")
15851 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 245
Addison TX 75001
Fax: (877) 492-5185
NAMES
OF COLLEAGUES AT RSIEH
The firm address block
on pleadings and motions signed and filed by Attorney Kitz lists the names of
numerous other Texas attorneys associated with the same firm. As of 2013, the roster included the following
in addition to Nathanial D. Kitz:
Seung W. Chae
Shaun G. Brown
Michael R. Castro
Timothy A. Gasaway
Fallon Hamilton
Jeffrey S. Kramer
Steve Javandoost
Jamila B. Lloyd
Yvonne Mikulik
The mailing address for all of these
debt collection attorneys is the same office in Addison, Texas, which is a
suburb of Dallas. But the firm's attorneys file lawsuit in many counties around
the state.
Kitz's signature is not legible. He
typically circles his name on the list of attorneys to identify himself as the
signer, and as responsible for the pleading. (--> Rule 13 of the TRCP).
TYPICAL
PLEADINGS FILED BY ATTORNEY KITZ
Kitz and his colleagues at the RAUSCH
law firm file pleading generated with document production software that inserts
case-specific data, such defendant's name and the amount sued for, into electronic
templates. As a result, the initial pleadings in hundreds of cases look alike.
The same is true of motions.
The typical initial pleading filed by
RAUSCH attorneys is titled "Plaintiff's
Original Petition & First Discovery Requests". (In Texas state
courts, the initial document is called the Original Petition. In federal court,
and in many other states, the document filed to commence a civil action is
called Complaint.) Not all debt collection attorneys attach discovery requests
to their pleadings. RAUSCH attorneys do, which explains that additional
language in the title of its pleadings.
ANATOMY
OF A TYPICAL RAUSCH PETITION
TITLE
AND LENGTH. A typical petition filed
by attorneys with the RAUSCH law firm consists of three single-spaced pages divided
into 19 numbered paragraphs and sections designated with letters A through K. Because
it is more detailed and single-spaced, it looks busier than the pleadings filed
by other law firms in similar cases. It also contains more details and
citations to legal cases, albeit from different states.
CAUSE
OF ACTION. Although it is longer than
comparable petition, the sole theory of recovery invoked by a typical RAUSCH
petition is Breach of Contract.
FACTS:
WHAT'S INCLUDED AND WHAT NOT. In contrast to the initial pleadings filed by debt
collection attorneys operating independently or working for other lawfirms,
RAUSCH petitions contain a section of Facts
that contains the variable information for the particular case. It
identifies the issuing bank and the account upon which the suit is based with
the last four digits of the credit card/account number. It also provides the charge-off
date and states the total balance due "plus interest". No details
are given regarding additional interest, the rate of such interest, or the
starting date for accrual, which could be the charge-off date of the date the
suit was filed. One can only speculate.
The prayer at the end of the petition
asks for "actual damages" in the amount matching the amount alleged
as the total due on the account in the
fact section, and requests "pre-judgment" and "post-judgment
interest" without any further details and without specifying whether
either form of interest is based on contract or statute. (--> statutory
interest, judgment interest).
RAUSCH petitions differ from more basic
pleadings filed by other attorneys for credit card companies (or debt buyers)
in that they contain several less common, if not unique, paragraphs.
A paragraph on Damages characterizes the debt claim as liquidated (--> liquidated
damages) and reiterates the amount alleged as "due" in the fact
section, but at the same time qualifies the assertion of the amount of damages
with the phrase "at least" preceding the amount and "plus
interest" following it. This very short
paragraph on damages does not state an interest rate either.
As of 2013, RAUSCH petitions do not seek
attorney's fees. Therefore, there is no paragraph on such fees.
A paragraph titled "Miscellany" identifies Plaintiff's
attorneys as debt collectors, and advises the defendant that the undersigned
attorney is attempting to collect a debt. This paragraph was presumably
inserted into the pleading template as a safeguard against and preempt claims
of that the law firm and its attorneys failed to comply with notice and
disclosure requirements of the FDCPA.
The final paragraph preceding the prayer
references "Plaintiff's First
Discovery Request", which is attached as a separate document. This is
the correct procedure for serving discovery requests contemporaneously with the
citation and original petition. Some attorneys routinely flout the rule that
prohibits the court-filing of discovery requests by including them
within the body of their petitions. Incorporating discovery requests into
the petition itself necessarily results in them being filed with the
pleading.
STANDARD
SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS PROPOUNDED BY RAUSCH ATTORNEYS
The RAUSCH law firms' standard set of
discovery requests in debt collection suits is served together with the
citation and original petition (whose title expressly refers to the discovery
requests). It consists of all four types of paper discovery: Requests
for Disclosure; Requests for Production; Requests for Admission; and
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. The latter (with are also called ROGs
in the legal community) includes a pre-printed form for verification
under oath with a blank jurat for the notary public. (See Sample
verification of ROGS and jurat).
ANATOMY
OF A TYPICAL PMSJ FILED BY ATTORNEY NATHANIAL KITZ
[not available at this time]
This is good information. My question relates as to whether anyone has found flaws in the petition itself? Is it grounded in good law? The comment regarding their attempt to comply with the FDCPA is also helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with serving disclosure and other discovery requests with the initial complaint is that under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the respondent has 50 DAYS to answer the discovery (from the date defendant was served) as opposed to 30 days, if the discovery were served separately from the original complaint / petition.
Sometimes serving the discovery with the complaint backfires because if the Defendant/Respondent has a good lawyer, the lawyer will immediately fire back with his own written discovery, which if timed properly, would require the Plaintiff to proffer his responses to Defendant before the Defendant has to proffer his responses. At the end of the day - it doesn't really make any difference, especially if there are no earth shattering consequences at stake. Some people look at serving discovery with the complaint as "getting the drop on the other party", but many times get dropped on themselves when the Plaintiff ends up having to answer discovery BEFORE he (his attorney) gets his answers back.