A local roofing company alleges that a group of businesses and individuals engaged in unlawful debt collection tactics, including harassment and fraudulent representations, which the plaintiffs claim have caused ongoing harm to their business relationships and reputation. The complaint was filed by Roofing for Troops, LLC and its CEO Eugene Joseph Haskamp in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 30, 2026. The defendants named are Regional Adjustment Bureau Incorporated (doing business as RBA Inc.), RAB Inc., Ty Robinson, Renee Barker (collectively referred to as the RAB Defendants), and CA Repair and Roofing LLC.
According to the verified complaint, Roofing for Troops operates as a general contractor providing roofing and related services in the Tri-State area. In February 2023, they entered into a subcontract with CA Repair to perform work on several residential projects across Ohio and Kentucky. The plaintiffs allege that CA Repair failed to meet workmanship standards on at least five customer projects between November and December 2025. As a result of these alleged breaches—such as poor quality roofing or drywall work—the plaintiffs state they were required to repair or replace CA Repair’s work at their own expense.
The dispute escalated in March 2026 when the RAB Defendants allegedly began contacting Roofing for Troops regarding an alleged unpaid balance of $29,368.75 claimed by CA Repair. Plaintiffs assert that RAB Defendants sent emails and made phone calls representing themselves as legal counsel acting on behalf of CA Repair. According to the filing, one email stated: “Our firm represents CA Repair and Roofing for suit filing for a balance owed of $29,368.75,” further threatening litigation and lien filings unless payment was made.
Plaintiffs report that these communications gave the impression that RAB Defendants were licensed attorneys authorized to take legal action. However, days later it became apparent that neither Renee Barker nor Ty Robinson were licensed attorneys; rather, they were representatives of a debt collection business based in Texas. Despite this revelation—and after assurances from Barker not to contact customers—RAB Defendants allegedly continued sending emails directly to at least three customers threatening liens on their properties due to Roofing for Troops’ purported nonpayment.
The complaint describes how these actions led to confusion among customers who questioned why they were being threatened over debts supposedly owed by someone else. One customer wrote: “I am extremely confused… How would we be responsible for this if your client was supposed to be paid by the company we already gave money to?” Plaintiffs contend that such communications violated contractual privacy terms prohibiting disclosure of customer information by CA Repair.
Further allegations include claims that RAB Defendants failed to provide proper disclosures required under federal law for debt collectors, instead issuing what appeared to be legal demands without clarifying their true role or authority. The plaintiffs argue these acts constitute violations under multiple statutes: unfair competition provisions of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C §§ 1125), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C § 1692), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C §§ 1961 et seq.), mail/wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C §§ 1341 & 1343), as well as Ohio state laws concerning deceptive trade practices (O.R.C §§ 4165.01 et seq.)
After learning about these activities—and upon consulting legal counsel—plaintiffs rescinded an initial $4,000 payment made under what they describe as duress during family medical emergency circumstances. They subsequently issued a cease-and-desist letter through their attorney John Antony; however, according to exhibits referenced in the complaint, defendants rejected this demand and continued pressing for payment while threatening further actions including contacting insurance companies or filing bar grievances against plaintiffs’ counsel.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages exceeding $250,000 along with statutory damages for each alleged violation or occurrence under federal law. Plaintiffs also request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring further contact with their customers or third parties about disputed debts; declaratory judgment confirming defendants’ lack of entitlement; punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; costs; court costs; expenses related to litigation; as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-320 before Judge DRC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division at Cincinnati. Attorney John Antony is listed as corporate counsel representing Roofing for Troops.
Source: 126cv00320_Roofing_for_Troops_LLC_v_Regional_Adjustment_Bureau_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
