IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Francelina Evangelista, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 1378

)

Financial Recovery Services, Inc., a )

Minnesota corporation, )

)

Defendant. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Francelina Evangelista, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), for a finding that Defendant’s debt 

collection actions violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for Defendant’s

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) Defendant resides and transacts business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Francelina Evangelista ("Evangelista"), is a citizen of the State of 

California, from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt owed 

for a personal computer to Dell Financial Services, despite the fact that she was 

represented by the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinics’ Legal Advocates for 

Consumers in Debt program ("LACD"), located in Chicago, Illinois.

Case: 1:12-cv-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, Financial Recovery Services, Inc. (“FRS”), is a Minnesota

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. Defendant FRS operates a nationwide debt collection 

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

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

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

attempted to collect from Plaintiffs.

5. Defendant FRS is authorized to conduct business in the State of Illinois, 

and maintains a registered agent within the State of Illinois. See, record from the Illinois 

Secretary of State, attached as Exhibit A. In fact, Defendant FRS conducts extensive 

business in Illinois.

6. Moreover, Defendant FRS is licensed as a debt collection agency in the 

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

attached as Exhibit B. In fact, Defendant FRS acts as a collection agency in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Ms. Evangelista has limited assets and income, and fell behind on paying 

her bills, including a debt she owed to Dell Financial Services for a personal computer. 

When Defendant FRS began trying to collect this delinquent debt from Ms. Evangelista,

by sending her an initial form collection letter, dated May 19, 2010, she sought the 

assistance of the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic’s LACD program, 

regarding her financial difficulties and Defendant FRS’s collection actions. A copy of 

this collection letter is attached as Exhibit C.

Case: 1:12-cv-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

8. Accordingly, on August 27, 2010, one of Ms. Evangelista’s attorneys at 

LACD informed Defendant FRS, in writing, that Ms. Evangelista was represented by 

counsel, and directed Defendant FRS to cease contacting her, and to direct all further 

collection activities to her attorneys at LACD, because Ms. Evangelista was forced, by 

her financial circumstances, to try and negotiate a payment plan as to her unsecured 

debt. Copies of this letter and the fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit D. 

9. Thereafter, LACD sent to Defendant FRS, from LACD’s offices and 

checking account in Chicago, Illinois, monthly payments of $80 in September, October, 

November, and December 2010, and in January, February, March, April, May, June and 

July, 2011. Defendant FRS accepted these payments.

10. Moreover, on July 14, 2011, LACD faxed to Defendant FRS follow up 

correspondence regarding its failure to confirm the payment plan and to remind FRS 

that Ms. Evangelista was represented by counsel and should not be directly contacted 

by FRS. Copies of this letter and the fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit E. 

11. Thereafter, LACD sent to Defendant FRS, from LACD’s offices and 

checking account in Chicago, Illinois, monthly payments of $80 in August, September, 

October, November, December 2011, and in January, 2012. Defendant FRS accepted 

these payments.

12. Nonetheless, Defendant FRS sent a collection letter, dated January 25, 

2012, directly to Ms. Evangelista, which demanded payment of the Dell Financial 

Services debt. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit F.

13. Defendant FRS’s collection actions complained of herein occurred within 

one year of the date of this Complaint. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

14. Defendant FRS’s 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).

COUNT I

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

Failure To Cease Communications

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

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

communicating with a consumer and continuing to demand payment after a direction to

cease communications. See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

17. Here, the letters from Plaintiff’s agent/attorney, LACD, told Defendant FRS

to cease communications with Ms. Evangelista. By continuing to communicate 

regarding this debt with Ms. Evangelista, and demanding payment from her (Exhibit F), 

Defendant FRS violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

18. Defendant FRS’s violation of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA renders it 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 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-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

21. Defendant FRS knew that Ms. Evangelista was represented by counsel in 

connection with her debt because her attorneys at LACD had informed Defendant FRS, 

in writing, that she was represented by counsel, and had directed Defendant FRS to 

cease directly communicating with her. By directly sending Ms. Evangelista a collection 

letter (Exhibit F), despite being repeatedly advised that she was represented by 

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

22. Defendant FRS’s violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders it liable 

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

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Francelina Evangelista, prays that this Court:

1. Find that Defendant FRS’s debt collection actions violated the FDCPA;

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Evangelista, and against Defendant

FRS, 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, Francelina Evangelista, demands trial by jury.

Francelina Evangelista,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Dated: February 27, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 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-01378 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/27/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6