IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-8987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Henry Espejo brings this class action complaint against Defendant Santander 

Consumer USA, Inc., to stop Defendant’s practice of making unsolicited phone calls to cellular 

telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Plaintiff, for his class 

action complaint, alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and 

experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation 

conducted by his attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. is a debt collector that has made 

repeated calls to Plaintiff’s and the putative Classes’ cellular telephones in an attempt to collect 

alleged debts in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.) 

(the “TCPA”). 

2. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited phone calls exactly 

like those alleged in this case. Defendant made these calls despite the fact that neither Plaintiff 

Espejo, nor the other members of the putative Class, ever provided their cellular telephone 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:212
2

numbers to Defendant or any other entity for any purpose related to a debt, and never provided 

Defendant consent to be called on their cellular telephones. Even more egregiously, Defendant 

has made collection calls to the cell phones of the members of the SubClass even though they 

owed no debt to Defendant whatsoever.

3. By making these phone calls, Defendant has caused consumers actual harm in that 

Plaintiff and members of the Class and SubClass were subjected to the aggravation and nuisance 

that necessarily accompanies unsolicited phone calls. In addition, Plaintiff and putative Class 

Members suffered direct and indirect harm in the form of monies paid for the receipt of such 

calls from Defendant.

4. In order to redress these injuries, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a nationwide 

Class and SubClass of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the TCPA, which 

prohibits the making of unsolicited calls to cell phones.

5. On behalf of the Class, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease 

all unsolicited phone call activities and an award of statutory damages to the members of the 

Class and SubClass, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Henry Espejo is a natural person domiciled in the State of Florida.

7. Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., is a corporation incorporated and 

existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business located at 8585 

North Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1100-N, Dallas, Texas 75247. It does business throughout the 

United States and the State of Illinois. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:213
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331, as the action arises under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.

9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is incorporated in 

this District and transacts significant amounts of business within this District.

10. Venue is additionally proper because Defendant is incorporated here.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

11. Defendant placed and continues to place repeated and harassing phone calls to 

consumers who have a debt held by Defendant, and in many instances, Defendant placed those 

calls to phone numbers that were never provided to Defendant, and for which consumers never 

provided Defendant consent to call. Instead, Defendant acquires phone numbers through various 

means such as “skip tracing” or “number trapping.” 

12. The most egregious types of these calls are placed to those consumers who in fact 

have no debt whatsoever owed to Defendant. Instead, a person may start receiving calls as the 

result of Defendant’s skip tracing, which has revealed that the call recipient has some connection 

to the actual debtor. These connections could include being a relative or roommate, but also 

include cellular phone numbers once used by the debtor, but which no longer belong to that 

person. 

13. Defendant has placed calls for the purpose of debt collection to tens of thousands 

of consumers in the past four years. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:214
4

14. Plaintiff has received numerous phone calls from Defendant to his cellular 

telephone seeking to collect a debt belonging to someone other than him. Since late 2010, 

Defendant has called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone dozens of times, often placing calls as many 

as three times a day. Moreover, the calls have yet to cease and continue to this day. 

15. Plaintiff is not in privity with Defendant, does not owe Defendant any money, and 

is not responsible for the debt that Defendant seeks to collect. Plaintiff has never provided his

phone number to Defendant or given his express consent to be called, whether on his own behalf

or on behalf of any third party. 

16. The calls Plaintiff received were made using equipment that had the capacity to 

store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, 

and to dial such numbers. Additionally, Defendant’s calls utilized interactive voice recognition 

technology, also known as a predictive dialer, in which calls are placed by a machine, and when 

a consumer answers the phone, there is a noticeable pause prior to being connected to a live 

representative of Defendant. This technology, on information and belief, dials several numbers 

simultaneously and connects the call to only those who answer first. 

17. When Plaintiff answered the calls from Defendant, the representative inquired 

about an outstanding debt that neither belongs to, nor is owed by Plaintiff. 

18. Plaintiff never consented to, requested, or otherwise desired or permitted calls 

from Defendant for the purpose of debt collection or any other purpose.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) 

and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a Class and SubClass defined as follows:

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:215
5

No Consent Class:

Any person in the United States to whom Defendant (1) placed a call in 

connection with the collection of a debt; (2) to a cellular telephone 

number; and (3) which was never provided to Defendant or to any other 

entity associated with the origination or collection of the debt by the 

person called. 

No Debt SubClass: 

Any No Consent Class Member to whom Defendant placed a call in 

connection with the collection of a debt and the debt does not belong to 

the person called.

20. Numerosity: The exact number of the members of the Class and SubClass is 

unknown and not available to the Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. 

On information and belief, Defendant has placed calls to tens of thousands of consumers who fall 

into the definitions of the Class and SubClass. Members of the Class and SubClass can be 

identified through Defendant’s records.

21. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the 

Class and SubClass, as Plaintiff and other members of the Class and SubClass sustained damages 

arising out of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, based upon the same types of phone calls 

made to Plaintiff.

22. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Class and SubClass, and has retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class 

and SubClass, and Defendant has no defenses unique to the Plaintiff.

23. Predominance and Superiority: This class action is appropriate for certification 

because class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:216
6

adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages 

suffered by the individual members of the Class and SubClass will likely be relatively small, 

especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation 

necessitated by the actions of Defendant. It would be virtually impossible for the individual 

members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if 

members of the Class and SubClass could sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be 

preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to 

all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By 

contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of 

single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court. 

Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.

24. Commonality: There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims 

of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect 

individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes include, but are not 

limited to the following:

(a) whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;

(b) whether equipment used by Defendant to place calls was an automatic 

telephone dialing system;

(c) whether Defendant systematically placed phone calls to persons who did 

not previously provide Defendants with their prior express consent to 

receive such phone calls; and

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:217
7

(d) whether Class members are entitled to treble damages based on the 

willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.

COUNT I

Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227;

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and SubClass)

25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein.

26. Defendant and its agents made thousands of unsolicited phone calls to wireless 

telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class and SubClass using 

equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a 

random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.

27. Defendant utilized a predicative dialer to place numerous phone calls to Plaintiff 

and members of the Class and SubClass simultaneously and without human intervention. 

Defendant’s equipment qualifies as a predictive dialer because it is equipment, combining 

software and hardware aspects, that has the capacity to store or produce numbers and dial those 

numbers at random, in sequential order, or from a database of numbers.

28. The phone calls were made to Plaintiff and members of the Class and SubClass 

without those numbers being provided to Defendant or any other entity in connection with any 

debt, and without the consent of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and SubClass who 

received phone calls on their cellular telephones.

29. Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of 

Defendant’s illegal conduct, the members of the Class suffered actual damages in the form of 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:218
8

monies paid to receive unsolicited calls on their cellular phones and, under section 227(b)(3)(B), 

are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation of such Act.

30. Should the Court determine that Defendant’s misconduct was willful and 

knowing, the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory 

damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Henry Espejo, individually and on behalf of the Class and 

SubClass, prays for the following relief:

1. An order certifying the Class and SubClass as defined above; appointing 

Plaintiff Henry Espejo as the representative of the Class; and appointing 

his counsel as Class Counsel;

2. An award of actual and statutory damages;

3. An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited phone call 

activities, and otherwise protecting the interests of the Class and SubClass;

4. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

5. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:219
9

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Dated: August 8, 2012

By: /s/ Christopher L. Dore 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

350 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6380

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens*

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: 954-306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

*Admitted pro hac vice

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:220
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Christopher L. Dore, an attorney, certify that, on August 8, 2012, I caused this 

document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will send notification of filing to counsel of record for each party.

/s/ Christopher L. Dore

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/08/12 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:221