Quantcast

RICO class action targets lending service owned by Kashia Band of Pomo Indians

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

RICO class action targets lending service owned by Kashia Band of Pomo Indians

Lawsuits
Law money 10

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania resident has filed a class action lawsuit against Derrick J. Franklin, Alyssa Franklin, Reno Keoni Franklin, Dino Franklin Jr. and Brandon Wilder, employees of Kashia Services, citing alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Isiah A. Jones III filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the defendants, alleging that they participated in a RICO conspiracy by operating an enterprise through the collection of unlawful debt.

Kashia Services operates an online lending service owned by the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria.

Jones accuses the defendants of violating RICO, the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) and the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (LIPL).

The plaintiff alleges that in December 2017, he was issued a $500 loan at a rate of interest believed to be in excess of 700% APR from Kashia Services. 

Payments were due weekly and were made by allowing Kashia Services to make automatic ACH withdrawals from his bank account. 

He had fallen behind and entered into a second loan transaction to refinance the balance. The second loan dated March 5, was for $598.44 at 775.81% A.P.R. The loan calls for weekly payments of $90.01 until December 28, for a total of $3,804.53. 

Plaintiff made payments on the loans from December 2017 until May 2018 and then refused to pay more. At that point, plaintiff had paid Kashia Services a total of $1,530.73 on a $500 loan, so he had paid about $1,000 more than he borrowed, he says.

The plaintiff holds Derrick J. Franklin, Alyssa Franklin, Reno Keoni Franklin, Dino Franklin Jr and Brandon Wilder responsible because the defendants allegedly under Pennsylvania law, were not allowed to charge plaintiff more than 6% annual interest, 41 P.S. § 201, and at that rate, most of the funds plaintiff paid in excess of the loan was usurious interest.

 Furthermore, defendants are participants along with others in a conspiracy to operate one or more business entities that make loans online to residents of Pennsylvania in violation of Pennsylvania's usury laws and banking regulations, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award of actual and statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs, and any other relief that is just and appropriate. He is represented by Robert F. Salvin in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:18-cv-02982-JS 

More News