IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Linda Agard, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 2536

)

Credit Control, LLC, a Missouri limited )

liability company, and United Debt )

Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited )

liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Linda Agard, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), for a finding that Defendants' debt collection 

actions violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for Defendants' violations of the 

FDCPA, and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1692k(d) of the FDCPA, and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this District because: a) part of the acts and 

transactions occurred here; and, b) Defendants reside and transact business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Linda Agard ("Agard"), is a citizen of the State of Virginia, from 

whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt owed for a JC 

Penney account, despite the fact that she was represented by the legal aid attorneys at 

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

the Chicago Legal Clinic's Legal Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities 

program ("LASPD"), located in Chicago, Illinois.

4. Defendant, Credit Control, LLC (“Credit Control"), is a Missouri limited 

liability company, that acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a of the FDCPA, 

because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, 

delinquent consumer debts. In fact, Credit Control was acting as a debt collector as to 

the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

5. Defendant, United Debt Holdings, LLC (“United”), is a Delaware limited 

liability company that acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a of the FDCPA, 

because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, 

delinquent consumer debts. United operates a nationwide delinquent debt collection 

business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including 

consumers in the State of Illinois.

6. Defendant United is a debt scavenger that specializes in buying large 

portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, the full amount of 

which debts it then tries to collect through other debt collectors, like Defendant Credit 

Control.

7. Both Defendants, Credit Control and United, are authorized to conduct 

business in Illinois, and maintain registered agents here, see, records from the Illinois 

Secretary of State, attached as Group Exhibit A. In fact, both Credit Control and United

conduct business in Illinois.

8. Both Defendants, Credit Control and United, are licensed as debt 

collection agencies in the State of Illinois. See, records from the Illinois Division of 

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

Professional Regulation, attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, both Credit Control and 

United act as collection agencies in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Agard is a disabled woman with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying her bills. At some point in time, Defendant United bought Ms. Agard’s

JC Penney’s debt after she defaulted on this debt, and when Defendants began trying 

to collect it from Ms. Agard, she sought the assistance of the legal aid attorneys at the 

Chicago Legal Clinic’s LASPD program, regarding her financial difficulties and 

Defendants' collection actions. 

10. On June 1, 2011, one of Ms. Agard's attorneys at LASPD informed 

Defendants, in writing, that Ms. Agard was represented by counsel, and directed

Defendants to cease contacting her, and to cease all further collection activities

because Ms. Agard was forced, by her financial circumstances, to refuse to pay her

unsecured debt. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit C. 

11. Nonetheless, Defendants sent a collection letter, dated January 27, 2012, 

directly to Ms. Agard, in which they continued to demand payment of the JC Penney

debt. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D.

12. Accordingly, on March 29, 2012, Ms. Agard's LASPD attorney had to send

Defendants an additional letter, again directing them to cease communications and to 

cease collections. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit E.

13. All of Defendants' collection actions complained of herein occurred within 

one year of the date of this Complaint. 

14. Defendants' collection communications are to be interpreted under the

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

“unsophisticated consumer” standard. See, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership, 

27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).

COUNT I

Violation Of § 1692c(c) Of The FDCPA --

Failure To Cease Communication And Cease Collections

15. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-14.

16. Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from 

communicating with a consumer after a direction to cease communications, and from 

continuing to demand payment of a debt that the consumer has indicated that they 

refuse to pay. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

17. Here, the letter from Ms. Agard's agent, LASPD, told Defendants to cease 

communications and to cease collections (Exhibit C). By continuing to communicate 

regarding this debt and demanding payment, Defendants violated § 1692c(c) of the 

FDCPA.

18. Defendants' violation of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA renders them liable for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k.

COUNT II

Violation Of § 1692c(a)(2) Of The FDCPA --

Communicating With A Consumer Represented By Counsel

19. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-14.

20. Section 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from 

communicating with a consumer if the debt collector knows that the consumer is 

represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can 

readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). 

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

21. Defendants knew that Ms. Agard was represented by counsel in 

connection with her debt because her attorneys at LASPD had informed Defendants, in 

writing (Exhibit C), that she was represented by counsel, and had directed Defendants

to cease directly communicating with Ms. Agard. By directly sending Ms. Agard the 

January 27, 2012 letter (Exhibit D), despite being advised that she was represented by 

counsel, Defendants violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

22. Defendants' violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders them liable 

for actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Linda Agard, prays that this Court:

1. Find that Defendants' debt collection actions violated the FDCPA;

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Agard, and against Defendants, for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by §

1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and,

3. Grant such further relief as deemed just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Linda Agard, demands trial by jury.

Linda Agard,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps_______

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Dated: April 6, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

mephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-02536 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6