Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION Daisy Y. Jiminez Pinto de Saldaña : Miguel Angel Cruz, and : Maria de la Luz Hernandez Martinez : Cause No. Individually and on behalf of others : Plaintiffs : : v. : Individual and : Class Action Complaint Manuel E. Solis, d/b/a Law Offices of : for Deceptive Acts and Manuel E. Solis, Manuel Solis Law : Practices affecting Federal Firm, Despacho Juridico de Manuel : Immigration Matters Solis, Law Office of Attorney Manuel : Solis, Despacho Juridico de Manuel : Solis y Asociados, Jessica Y. Prado, : Defendants : JURISDICTION 1. The plaintiffs, individually and as a class, bring this action pursuant to 16 C.F.R. 238 regarding Bait and Switch Advertising through 28 U.S.C federal question jurisdiction and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act through 28 U.S.C pendant jurisdiction. Courthouse News Service THE PARTIES 2. Daisy Y. Jiminez Pinto de Saldaña is a Spanish speaking woman of Nicaraguan birth who resides in Brownsville, Texas and sought services from defendant(s) at their Harlingen, Texas office;

2 3. Miguel Angel Cruz is a Spanish speaking male of Mexican birth who resides in Brownsville, Texas and sought services from defendant(s) at their Harlingen, Texas office; 4. Maria de la Luz Hernandez Martinez is a Spanish speaking woman of Mexican birth who resides in Brownsville, Texas and sought services from defendant(s) at their Harlingen, Texas office; 5. Manuel E. Solis is a Texas licensed attorney whose main office is located in Houston, Texas. He has offices in several locations within Texas, Illinois, California, perhaps in other locations and Mexico. The office where the plaintiffs sought services is located in Harlingen, Texas. He practices under the names of Law Offices of Manuel E. Solis, Manuel Solis Law Firm, Manuel Solis Law Firm, P.C., Despacho Juridico de Manuel Solis, Law Office of Attorney Manuel Solis, The Law Offices of Manuel Solis, P.C, Despacho Juridico de Manuel Solis y Asociados not limited to those; 6. Jessica Y. Prado is a Texas licensed attorney whose main office is located in Harlingen, Texas; 7. Numerous unnamed attorneys practicing in various states in agreement with Manuel E. Solis or his law offices; BACKGROUND 8. The defendants heavily advertise a program referred to as R.O.I. in the Spanish Language Media. The targeted consumers are also generally poor,

3 many have children that receive food stamps or other public benefit. They are undocumented immigrants. R.O.I. purports to be an insurance program. It also purports to be a pre-paid legal services program, in which a person will be represented by the law firm, at no additional cost if they are detained; the alleged contract states, or they may receive up to three free legal consultations at no additional cost on complicated immigration matters. A person enters into an alleged contract after speaking with an employee of the firm not an attorney. The client may, or may not, be given a copy of the alleged contract. They are given a G-28 with a stamped signature and a letter informing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that they represent the client 1 ; 9. The cost of the program varies the Pulso Latino states the program cost $360. (May 2008); however, one plaintiff paid $580. for joint representation of he and his spouse (October 2008); another plaintiff paid $460. (February 2009). The client is encouraged to purchase other services of the law firm for additional fees. A CBP Freedom of Information Act request $300., and maintaining a file with their birth certificates and marriage license so that when Comprehensive Immigration Reform(CIR) passes they will be one of the first to sign up. Clients are signed up for R.O.I. even if they have a prior deportation, or other type of removal. The client s immigration 1 Some immigration practitioners charge from $60. to $400. for this type of letter and G-28 Notice of Representation. The practice has been termed an Amparo Letter, in Latin American countries, an amparo is a writ of protection that has a real legal purpose; this amparo is a useless piece of paper the letter states exactly what a G-28 would imply to a CBP officer. Most immigration practitioners would not engage in this practice. It is also of note that the regulations do not require that a Warrant, or a Notice to Appear be served on counsel if a person is represented by counsel.

4 status is not evaluated to find a solution to the immigrant s current immigration problem. Many immigrants are being placed at risk because they believe that they are being protected from removal with the R.O.I. program. The immigration bar has been queried by potential clients, as to whether they do the R.O.I. program, or not, many consumers believe it is a new immigration benefit; 10. Some of the other services are also not real services, e.g. retyping a physician s letter to Border Patrol to allow free passage at the checkpoint for medical care onto law firm letterhead and rewording it so it is from the law office $250. This letter also has a purpose that is counter to the R.O.I. program. The letter offers free passage at the immigration checkpoint to accompany a sick child to see a medical specialist, R.O.I. offers hope that they will be detained by CBP so they may obtain their legal permanent residency through Cancellation of Removal in immigration court; 11. The individual is told that if detained they will be released on Bond in 3 days. The alleged contract states that if the person is subject to reinstatement of removal they can obtain a refund, that presupposes that the individual s immigration history and possible forms of relief is not even checked;

5 THE CLASS 12. Hundreds, if not thousands, of undocumented Spanish speaking immigrants most who are undereducated, of low economic status, and have signed up for the R.O.I. program. The class claims are common in that individuals paid for legal services in the form of R.O.I. and their individual cases have not been thoroughly reviewed for current forms of relief available to them, if any, and they believe they are protected by R.O.I. The claims of the individuals are typical of the class. Counsel will adequately protect the interest of class members; CLAIMS FIRST INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND FIRST CLASS CLAIM 13. The defendant or defendants advertise, their services and/or the R.O.I. Program, heavily in the Spanish Language in several states including Texas; 14. The plaintiff or plaintiffs paid for the R.O.I. Program believing that it would protect their rights under the immigration and nationality laws; 15. The plaintiff or plaintiffs were induced by the defendant or defendants to purchase other services after being baited by the R.O.I. advertisement; 16. R.O.I. and/or the other alleged services are more advantageous to the defendant or defendants than to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.

6 17. The defendant s or defendants actions violated 16 C.F.R. 238, or 15 U.S.C. 52, or Texas DTPA 17.12; SECOND INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND SECOND CLASS CLAIM 18. The defendant or defendants advertise, their services and/or the R.O.I. Program, heavily in the Spanish Language in several states including Texas; 19. The plaintiff or plaintiffs paid for the R.O.I. Program and/or the defendant or defendants services with the belief that their rights under the immigration and nationality laws of the United States were being protected; 20. The plaintiff or plaintiffs relied on the defendant or defendants to the detriment of the plaintiffs in that they paid for a false and/or defective service; 21. The defendant s actions violated the Texas DTPA 17.46(b)(5), and/or Texas DTPA 17.46(b)(7), and/or Texas DTPA 17.46(b)(12), and/or 15 U.S.C. 52, and/or Texas DTPA 17.12; THIRD INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND THIRD CLASS CLAIM 22. The defendant or defendants advertise, their services and/or the R.O.I. Program, heavily in the Spanish Language in several states including Texas; 23. The plaintiff or plaintiffs paid for the R.O.I. Program and/or the defendant or defendants services with the belief that their rights under the immigration and nationality laws of the United States were being protected;

7 24. The plaintiff or plaintiffs were induced to purchase other services of the defendant or defendants, which had a purpose opposite that of the R.O.I. program; 25. The plaintiff or plaintiffs relied on the defendant or defendants to the detriment of the plaintiffs; 26. The defendant s or defendants actions violated the Texas DTPA 17.46(b)(24); FOURTH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND FOURTH CLASS CLAIM 27. The plaintiff or plaintiffs sought and paid for legal services at the defendant s or defendants law office; 28. The defendant, or defendants were negligent in their representation of the plaintiff, or plaintiff s resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or plaintiffs; 29. The defendant s or defendants actions and/or failure to act was the proximate cause of injury suffered by the plaintiff, or plaintiffs; FIFTH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND FIFTH CLASS CLAIM 30. The plaintiff or plaintiffs sought and paid for legal services at the defendant s or defendants law office;

8 31. The defendant, or defendants acted with wanton and/or reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, or plaintiffs in their representation resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or plaintiffs; 32. The defendant s or defendants actions and/or failure to act was the proximate cause of injury suffered by the plaintiff, or plaintiffs; SIXTH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM AND SIXTH CLASS CLAIM 33. The plaintiff or plaintiffs sought and paid for legal services at the defendant s or defendants law office; 34. The defendant, or defendants acted with intentional disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, or plaintiffs in their representation resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or plaintiffs; 35. The defendant s or defendants actions and/or failure to act was the proximate cause of injury suffered by the plaintiff, or plaintiffs.

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF The plaintiff(s) seek the following relief: The appointment of counsel to fully evaluate each class member s immigration case for possible current remedies; Injunction prohibiting charging any person for an amparo letter ; Economic damages; Damages for mental anguish; Costs and expenses; Attorney fees; and, Any other relief at law or equity not claimed, but found to be available to the plaintiff(s). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marlene A. Dougherty Marlene A. Dougherty CT Fed.Id E. 8 th Street Brownsville, TX mdimmigrationatty@sbcglobal.net fax

10 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Marlene A. Dougherty, certify that a copy of this complaint was served on the defendants with a request for waiver of service of summons as well as on the following by mailing them Certified mail through the USPS: Federal Trade Commission Consumer Response Center 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division PO Box Austin, TX On July 14, /s/ Marlene A. Dougherty Marlene A. Dougherty CT Fed.Id E. 8 th Street Brownsville, TX mdimmigrationatty@sbcglobal.net fax