IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Marilyn Barce, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 2742

)

CIGPF I Corp., a New York corporation, )

SRA Associates, Inc., a New Jersey )

corporation, and American Coradius )

International, LLC, a Delaware limited )

liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Marilyn Barce, 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, Marilyn Barce ("Barce"), is a citizen of the State of New York, 

from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer Providian Bank 

debt, which was then allegedly owed to a bad debt buyer, CIGPF I Corp., despite the

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
2

fact that she was represented by the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic's 

Legal Advocates for Seniors and People with Disabilities program ("LASPD"), located in 

Chicago, Illinois.

4. Defendant, CIGPF I Corp. (“CIGPFI"), is a New York corporation 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, directly or indirectly, 

delinquent consumer debts. CIGPFI 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. In fact, Defendant CIGPFI was acting as a 

debt collector, as that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer debt 

it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. 

5. Defendant, SRA Associates, Inc. (“SRA”), is a New Jersey corporation, 

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. SRA 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. In fact, Defendant SRA was acting as a debt collector, as that term 

is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from 

Plaintiff.

6. Defendant, American Coradius International (“ACI”), 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. ACI operates a nationwide delinquent debt collection 

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
3

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

including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant ACI was acting as a debt 

collector, as that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer debt it 

attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

7. Defendant CIGPFI is a bad debt buyer that acquires portfolios of defaulted 

consumer debts, which it then collects upon through other collection agencies, such as 

Defendants SRA and ACI.

8. Defendants are all authorized to conduct business in the State of Illinois 

and maintain registered agents within the State of Illinois, see, records from the Illinois 

Secretary of State, attached as Group Exhibit A. In fact, CIGPFI, SRA and ACI each 

conduct extensive and substantial business in Illinois.

9. Defendants SRA and ACI are each licensed as debt collection agencies in 

the State of Illinois, see, records from the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation, 

attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, Defendants SRA and ACI act as collection 

agencies in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Ms. Barce is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying her bills. At some point in time, Defendant CIGPFI bought/obtained

Ms. Barce’s delinquent Providian Bank credit card, and when Defendant CIGPFI began 

trying to collect the debt from her, by having Defendant SRA send Ms. Barce a 

collection letter dated June 7, 2011, she sought the assistance of legal aid attorneys at 

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

Defendants’ collection actions. A copy of the February 8, 2011 collection letter is 

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
4

attached as Exhibit C. 

11. Accordingly, on June 29, 2011, one of Ms. Barce's attorneys at LASPD 

informed Defendants CIGPFI and SRA, that Ms. Barce was represented by counsel, 

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

activities because Ms. Barce was forced, by her financial circumstances, to refuse to 

pay her unsecured debt. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as

Exhibit D. 

12. Either Defendant CIGPFI ignored this notification, or Defendant SRA failed 

to provide this information to CIGPFI. Either way, Defendant CIGPFI then had 

Defendant ACI send Ms. Barce a collection letter, dated January 5, 2012, which 

demanded payment of the debt. A copy of this collection letter is attached as Exhibit E. 

If SRA properly notified CIGPFI, then it will be dismissed from this Complaint and, if not, 

it should be held liable for the other Defendants’ subsequent actions. 

13. Accordingly, on January 9, 2012, Ms. Barce's LASPD attorney again sent

a letter, directing that Defendants cease communications and to cease collections. 

Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit F.

14. Defendants’ collection actions complained of herein occurred within one 

year of the date of this Complaint. 

15. Defendants’ collection communications are to be interpreted under the 

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

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

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5

COUNT I

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

Failure To Cease Communications And Cease Collections

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

17. 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).

18. Here, the letter from Ms. Barce's agent/attorney, LASPD, told Defendants

to cease communications and cease collections. By continuing to communicate 

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

FDCPA.

19. Defendants’ violations of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA render 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

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

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

communicating with a consumer if the debt collector knows 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). 

22. Defendants knew, or readily could have known, that Ms. Barce was 

represented by counsel in connection with her debts because her attorneys at LASPD 

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
6

had informed Defendants, in writing, that Ms. Barce was represented by counsel, and 

had directed a cessation of communications with Ms. Barce. By directly sending a 

collection letter to Ms. Barce, despite being advised that she was represented by 

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

23. Defendants’ violations of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA render them liable 

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

U.S.C. § 1692k.

COUNT III

Violations Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA -- 

Use of Unfair or Unconscionable Collection Means 

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

25. Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any 

unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f(1). 

26. Defendant SRA’s failure to notify Defendants CIGPF and ACI that the 

account was subject to a cease collections, cease communications and attorney 

representation, or Defendants CIGPF’s and ACI’s failure to take heed of that notice, 

constitutes unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt, in violation of § 1692f of 

the FDCPA.

27. Defendants’ violations of § 1692f of the FDCPA render them liable for 

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

1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Marilyn Barce, prays that this Court:

Case: 1:12-cv-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
7

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

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Barce, 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, Marilyn Barce, demands trial by jury.

Marilyn Barce,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

Dated: April 13, 2012

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-02742 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/13/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7