Quantcast

Private investigation firm dismisses lawsuit against class action lawyers

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Private investigation firm dismisses lawsuit against class action lawyers

Federal Court
Money065

PHILADELPHIA – A Texas man and a California private investigation firm who were the targets of a class action lawsuit over fraud claims, have dropped their litigation against the attorneys behind the class action.

Paul Hashim of Keller, Texas and U.S. Claims Services, Inc. (doing business as Payne Richards & Associates) of Bakersfield, Calif. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 5 versus Dominick DeSimone and Andrew Austin, Esq., both of Philadelphia.

Hashim is the owner of Payne Richards & Associates, a private investigation firm who specializes in discovering unclaimed funds and reuniting them with the rightful owners, for which they earned a finder’s fee.

Defendant DeSimone allegedly had unclaimed property in possession of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which was posted on the Treasurer’s public website for two years, which he allegedly acknowledged that he was free to claim but failed to do so, the suit stated.

“In fact, the reason defendant DeSimone’s property was in the custody of the Treasurer as ‘unclaimed property’ in the first place was that defendant DeSimone lost and misplaced certain paychecks, so that the funds were ‘escheated’ or transferred to the Treasurer as lost and unclaimed property.”

Payne Richards assisted Defendant DeSimone on two separate occasions under two separate contracts dated May 31, 2018 and April 17, 2019, which the plaintiffs said was received with no objections at the time, but they said that was to change.

“On Nov. 5, 2019, Payne Richards began receiving a series of communications from defendant Andrew B. Austin. These communications threatened that unless Payne Richards and Hashim immediately paid $2,500 to DeSimone and $2,500 to his attorney Austin, then Austin would file ‘a nationwide class action lawsuit’ against them on behalf of defendant DeSimone. Defendants did not provide the basis for or the theory of liability on which defendants based their demands for payment,” the suit said.

Litigation between the parties would later follow, this past August.

“This case involves the defendants’ unlawful initiation and maintenance of a purported nationwide class action lawsuit alleging unfair trade practices and fraud, without either an investigation into the allegations or probable cause to do so. When repeatedly asked for the legal and factual bases for the claims against Hashim and Payne Richards, defendants DeSimone and Austin failed to state any valid basis for their lawsuit but instead issued extortionate and escalating settlement demands and threats,” the suit stated.

“After defendants were placed on notice of the defects in their case, defendants doubled down by multiplying allegations of fraud against Hashim as he was hospitalized and seriously ill. Defendants initiated and maintained the suit against Hashim and Payne Richards for the improper purpose and with the intent that doing so would coerce Hashim and/or Payne Richards into paying an unwarranted and exorbitant settlement despite the fact that the claims had no merit.”

Hashim and Payne Richards brought the suit to recover losses sustained, after they said they suffered damages when they were forced to contest and defeat the defendants’ baseless lawsuit.

However, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on Sept. 24.

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), plaintiffs Paul Hashim and U.S. Claims Services, Inc. hereby voluntarily dismisses this action, without prejudice, as against defendants Dominick DeSimone and Andrew Austin. Defendants have neither filed nor served an answer or other responsive pleading,” the dismissal motion stated.

Prior to dismissal and for wrongful use of civil proceedings, the plaintiffs were seeking:

• Actual damages as a result of the defendants’ tortious conduct in an amount between $500,000 to $1,000,000 or in the amount to be proven at trial;

• Incidental and consequential damages against defendant Dominick DeSimone and defendant Andrew Austin as permitted by law;

• Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate to punish and set an example of defendants DeSimone and attorney Andrew Austin for their willful and malicious conduct;

• Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs against defendants DeSimone and Austin;

• A permanent injunction restraining defendant Austin from engaging and/or alleging in future unlawful and/or fraudulent allegations as alleged in this complaint;

• Pre-judgment and post-judgement interest at the allowable statutory rate and all such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

The plaintiffs were represented by William W. Palmer of Palmer Law Group in Sacramento, Calif. and Michael P. Broadhurst of Weir & Partners, in Philadelphia.

The defendants were represented of Andrew B. Austin of Stackhouse Group, in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03812

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News