Consumer complaint received 2015-10-04
Company: I.C. System, Inc.
State: CT
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.)
Issue: Communication tactics
Sub-issue: Frequent or repeated calls

Complaint:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTDocket No : XXXXMORANDUM OF LAWXX/XX/2015PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW TODEFENDANTS " SECOND '' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORTOF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSXXXX XXXX ( " Plaintiff '' ), objects to defendants second memorandum of law on motion for judgment on the pleadings ( the " Motion '' ) filed by Defendant I.C. System, Inc., ( " Defendant '' ) as follows : ORAL HEARING NOT REQUESTEDPRELIMINARY STATEMENTPlaintiff XXXX XXXX ( " Plaintiff '' ), objects and respectfully submits this memorandum of law in reply to defendants improper second memorandum of law in support of defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings which attempts to erroneously claim plaintiffs failure to state a cause of action which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( " FRCP '' ) 12 ( c ) and 12 ( h ) ( 2 ). XXXX XXXX, Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant. 
2Plaintiffs " Objection '' ( " Objection '' ) to defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings accurately applies to the defendants injurious acts and assaults upon plaintiff. Defendant called the plaintiff no less than 29 times in 30 days violating the statues under which plaintiff has brought his claims. Plaintiff successfully undercuts defendants, I.C. System, Inc. ( " defendant '' ). Defendant attempts to squirm out of accountability by claiming they never violated the TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT ( " TCPA '' ) or CONNECTICUT PUBLIC ACT 14-53, codified C.G.S.A. 42-288a ( " CPA 14-53 '' ), " AN ACT PROHIBITING UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL TEXT MESSAGES AND INCREASING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE DO NOT CALL REGISTRY ''. Plaintiff justifiably seeks the Connecticut " statutory '' relief of {$20000.00} per call ( {$580000.00} ) plus the Federal " statutory '' relief of three times {$500.00} per call ( {$43000.00} ) for a total of {$620000.00} as stated in his original complaint regardless of whether he cross-motioned or not. 
Plaintiff objects to defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiff objects to defendants inappropriate multiple memorandums of law ( which allegedly violates the judges local rule which states : " Sur-reply Briefs - Judge XXXX discourages the filing of sur-reply briefs and allows them only as necessary to address a significant issue or legal authority that has been raised by the opposing party for the first time in its reply brief. ) Defendant rejects this rule by filing again on the same issues. Defendant also violated local rules by filing the second memorandum of law after the five day due date required. Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings should specifically be denied and plaintiffs complaint ruled upon in plaintiffs favor awarding plaintiff with {$620000.00} in statutory fines and court costs. 
3STATEMENT OF FACTSDefendant called the plaintiff 29 times in 30 days against the plaintiffs wishes. EXHIBIT A shows absolute proof of evidence of each call made by the defendant, even after plaintiff told the defendant to stop ( a violation of .G.S.A. 42-228a ( 11 ) ( c ) ). Defendant is the defendant in over XXXX lawsuits filed for similar complaints as seen in EXHIBIT B. 
Defendant then claims that " in the interest of judicial economy '' defendants statement of facts is already asserted in XXXX XXXX ; yet defendant goes on for XXXX pages rehashing statutory arguments again ; not to mention the unnecessary attorney affidavit defendant filed which local rules discourage. Plaintiff would argue that there is not much room for the Court to maneuver when a statutory penalty is involved. If they did it they have to pay. The Court does n't decide the penalty because the statute has already decided it for the Court via the Legislature. 
ARGUMENTPOINT ISTANDARDS OF REVIEWDefendant has excessively called XXXX of XXXX District

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation