1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.

BEN KENDLE, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

C & M ASSOCIATES GROUP, INC.,

an Illinois Corporation, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

1. On behalf of himself and the putative class, Plaintiff, Ben Kendle, alleges violations 

of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 15 U.S.C. §1692k. 

3. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides here and Defendant

conducts business in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Ben Kendle (“Plaintiff”), is a natural person, and citizen of the State of 

Florida, residing in Saint Lucie County, Florida.

5. Defendant, C & M Associates Group, Inc. (“Defendant”), is an Illinois Corporation

engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices located at 10330 

W. Roosevelt Road, Suite 205, Westchester, Illinois 60154.1

1 See web page accessed on May 24, 2020 which states “C & M Associates Group, Inc. is a collection agency that 

specializes in consumer debt settlement and recovery.”

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 1 of 8
2

6. Defendant regularly uses the United States Postal Service and telephone in the 

collection of consumer debt.

7. Defendant was licensed in the State of Florida as a consumer collection agency, 

license number CCA9904300 at all time relevant. 

8. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts for other parties. 

Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA.

9. At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, Defendant was acting as a 

debt collector with respect to the collection of Plaintiff’s alleged debt.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Defendant sought to collect from Plaintiff an alleged debt incurred by Plaintiff for 

personal, family, or household purposes, namely, from a credit card with Citibank, N.A.

11. On July 25, 2019, Defendant left a voice message on Plaintiff’s telephone that 

stated:

Hello this message is for Ben Kendle regarding a very urgent matter 

with Chadworth & Macons Associates Group please contact our 

office immediately to speak with one of our agents at 877-889-6936 

with reference number 12871105. Our hours of operation are 

Monday through Thursday 9 AM to 6 PM central standard time and 

Friday 8 AM to 5 PM central standard time thank you and we look 

forward to your call.

(The “July 25 Voice Message”).

12. Other similar messages were left for Plaintiff by Defendant on December 18, 2018, 

January 24, 2019, May 28, 2019 and June 18, 2019. None of these messages contained any 

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 2 of 8
3

indication that Defendant was a debt collector or that the messages were an attempt to collect a 

debt.

13. The July 25 Voice Message and the December 18, 2018, January 24, 2019, May 

28, 2019 and June 18, 2019 messages shall be collectively referred to as the “Voice Messages.”

14. The Voice Messages did not identify that the calls were from a debt collector and 

did not identify the name of the debt collector.

15. 15 U.S.C §1692e(11) states:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the 

following conduct is a violation of this section:

xxxx 

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written 

communication with the consumer and, in addition, if 

the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in 

that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is 

attempting to collect a debt and that any information 

obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure 

to disclose in subsequent communications that the 

communication is from a debt collector, except that 

this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made 

in connection with a legal action. 

Emphasis added.

16. 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) states:

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in 

connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the 

general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a 

violation of this section:

xxxx

(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the 

placement of telephone calls without meaningful 

disclosure of the caller’s identity. 

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 3 of 8
4

17. The Voice Messages stated the caller was “Chadworth & Macons,” yet no business 

or fictitious name is registered in the State of Florida with that name or identity.

18. The Voice Messages omit that the Voice Messages were from a debt collector in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11).

19. The Voice Messages failed to provide meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity 

in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6). 

20. Any potential bona fide error defense which relies upon Defendant’s mistaken 

interpretation of the legal duties imposed upon it by the FDCPA would fail as a matter of law.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. This action is brought on behalf of a Class consisting of (i) all persons with 

addresses in the State of Florida (ii) for whom an employee, agent, or representative of Defendant 

left, or caused to be left, a voice message (iii) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt

(iv) that failed to state that Defendant was a debt collector and did not provide meaningful 

disclosure of Defendant’s identity (v) during the one-year period prior to the filing of the original 

Complaint in this action through the date of certification.

22. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief based upon the Defendant’s practice of 

leaving, or causing to be left, voice messages for consumer debtors that failed to state that 

Defendant was a debt collector, that the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the 

Class is impractical. 

23. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, common issues that 

predominate over any issues involving only individual Class members. The factual issue common 

to each Class member is that each was left, or caused to be left, a voice message by Defendant that 

failed to state that Defendant was a debt collector and did not meaningfully identify that the calls 

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 4 of 8
5

were from Defendant. The common principal legal issue is whether Defendant’s omission in its 

voice messages that it left, or caused to be left, that Defendant was a debt collector, violated the 

FDCPA. 

24. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class members. All are based on the 

same facts and legal theories.

25. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. He has retained 

counsel experienced in handling actions involving unlawful practices under the FDCPA and Class 

actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests which might cause them not to 

vigorously pursue this action.

26. Certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is also appropriate in that: (1) the questions of law or fact common to the members of 

the class predominate over any questions affecting an individual member; and (2) a class action is 

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

27. Plaintiff requests certification of a Class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, for monetary damages; his appointment as Class Representative; and that his 

attorney Leo W. Desmond be appointed Class Counsel.

COUNT I

CLASS CLAIM

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11) 

28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27.

29. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11) states:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the 

following conduct is a violation of this section:

xxxx

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 5 of 8
6

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written 

communication with the consumer and, in addition, if 

the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in 

that initial communication, that the debt collector is 

attempting to collect a debt and that any information 

obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure 

to disclose in subsequent communications that the 

communication is from a debt collector, except that 

this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made 

in connection with a legal action. 

Emphasis added.

30. Defendant’s representatives left at least 5 voice messages directed to Plaintiff in 

connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt. 

31. Defendant’s representatives left similarly violating messages for members of the 

Class. 

32. The Voice Messages omitted that the calls were from a debt collector, and did not 

identify the correct name of the debt collector.

33. Defendant’s failure to identify in the Voice Messages that it was a debt collector is 

a violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11). 

34. Defendant’s Voice Messages would be confusing and misleading to the least 

sophisticated consumer with regard to his/her legal rights as they would not know the identity of 

the company that the caller represented or that the call was from a debt collector.

35. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award 

of statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k.

36. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award 

of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k.

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 6 of 8
7

COUNT II

CLASS CLAIM

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6)

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27 and 29 through 34.

38. 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) states: 

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in 

connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the 

general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a 

violation of this section:

xxxx

(6) Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the 

placement of telephone calls without meaningful 

disclosure of the caller’s identity. 

39. Defendant placed at least 5 telephone calls to Plaintiff and left at least 5 voice 

messages for Plaintiff in connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt. Other similar 

messages were left for members of the Class.

40. The Voice Messages did not provide meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity, 

that the calls were from a debt collector, nor the name of the debt collector.

41. Defendant’s failure to provide meaningful disclosure of their or the Defendant’s 

identity in the Voice Messages is a violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6). 

42. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award 

of statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k.

43. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award 

of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor against 

Defendant for:

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 7 of 8
8

a. An Order certifying this matter as a Class Action and appointment of Ben Kendle

as Class Representative as to all claims against Defendant;

b. An Order appointing Leo W. Desmond as Class Counsel;

c. An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k for all Class claims;

d. An award of attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of the instant suit; and

e. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Dated: May 26, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Leo W. Desmond

Leo W. Desmond, Esquire

Florida Bar Number 0041920

DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.

5070 Highway A1A, Suite D

Vero Beach, Florida 32963

Telephone: 772.231.9600

Facsimile: 772.231.0300

lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:20-cv-14164-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2020 Page 8 of 8