IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

David Smajo, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Midland Credit Management, Inc.; and DOES 

1-10, inclusive, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

COMPLAINT

For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, David Smajo, by undersigned counsel, states as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of the Defendants’ repeated violations of, inter alia, the Fair 

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

Plaintiff’s personal privacy by the Defendants and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a 

consumer debt. 

2. Supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the 

Defendants transact business in this District and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to 

this action occurred in this District. 

PARTIES

4. The Plaintiff, David Smajo (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in 

Chicago, Illinois, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
2 

5. The Defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”), is a California, 

business entity with an address of 8875 Aero Drive, Suite 200, San Diego, California, 92123, 

operating as a collection agency, and is a “debt collector” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6). 

6. Does 1-10 (the “Collectors”) are individual collectors employed by Midland and 

whose identities are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. One or more of the Collectors may be 

joined as parties once their identities are disclosed through discovery. 

7. Midland at all times acted by and through one or more of the Collectors. 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

A. The Debt

8. The Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation in the approximate amount of $340 

(the “Debt”) to an Citibank (the “Creditor”). 

9. The Debt arose from services provided by the Creditor which were primarily for 

family, personal or household purposes and which meets the definition of a “debt” under 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

10. The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Midland for collection, or 

Midland was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt. 

11. The Defendants attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in 

“communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
3 

B. Midland Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

FACTS

12. Within the last year, Midland has placed as many as eight (8) calls a day to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in an attempt to collect the Debt. 

13. Plaintiff has told Midland on several occasions that he will not pay the Debt to 

Midland. Plaintiff has asked that Midland cease placing calls to his cellular telephone because he 

will not pay the Debt. 

14. Midland has continued to place calls to Plaintiff despite his request that it not do 

so, often telling Plaintiff that it will not stop calling until he pays the Debt. 

15. Midland has repeatedly threatened to take legal action against Plaintiff. No such 

action has been taken to date. 

16. Midland has placed many calls to Plaintiff successively within a matter of minutes 

of each other. When Plaintiff asked Midland why it had placed so many calls to him, it 

responded by stating, “I’m going to keep calling you until I can speak with you.” 

17. Midland has placed calls to Plaintiff’s girlfriend’s cellular telephone after 

speaking with Plaintiff on several occasions and confirming that it had a correct telephone 

number for the Plaintiff. 

18. Plaintiff asked that Midland never call his girlfriend’s cellular telephone again. 

Midland has continued to do so despite Plaintiff’s request. 

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

19. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a result of the 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
4 

Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

20. As a direct consequence of the Defendants’ acts, practices and conduct, the 

Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional distress, 

fear, frustration and embarrassment. 

21. The Defendants’ conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in 

degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and 

utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA - 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

22. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

23. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(1) in that Defendants 

contacted third parties and failed to identify themselves and further failed to confirm or correct 

location information. 

24. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(3) in that Defendants 

contacted third parties in regards to the Plaintiff’s debt on numerous occasions, without being 

asked to do so. 

25. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) in that Defendants 

contacted the Plaintiff at a place and during a time known to be inconvenient for the Plaintiff. 

26. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d in that Defendants engaged 

in behavior the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse the Plaintiff in 

connection with the collection of a debt 

27. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2) in that Defendants used 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
5 

profane and abusive language when speaking with the consumer. 

28. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) in that Defendants caused 

a phone to ring repeatedly and engaged the Plaintiff in telephone conversations, with the intent to 

annoy and harass. 

29. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) in that Defendants 

threatened to take legal action, without actually intending to do so. 

30. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) in that Defendants 

employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt. 

31. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute numerous and 

multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited provisions. 

32. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’ violations. 

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS COLLECTION AGENCY ACT

225 ILCS 425/1, et seq.

33. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 

34. A private right of action exists for violation of the ICAA. Sherman v. Field Clinic, 

74 Ill. App. 3d 21, 392 N.E.2d 154 (1st Dist. 1979). 

35. Midland Credit Management, Inc., in the regular course of business, engages in 

debt collection and is a “collection agency” as defined by 225 ILCS 425/2.02. 

36. The Defendants’ conduct violated 225 ILCS 425/9(a)(15) in that Defendants 

communicated with the Plaintiff or any member of the Plaintiff's family at such a time of day or 

night and with such frequency as to constitute harassment of the Plaintiff or any member of the 

Plaintiff's family. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
6 

37. The Defendants’ conduct violated 225 ILCS 425/9(a)(15)(D) in that Defendants 

caused a telephone to ring or engaged the Plaintiff in telephone conversation repeatedly 

or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. 

38. The Defendants’ conduct violated 225 ILCS 425/9(a)(16) in that Defendants used 

profane, obscene or abusive language in communicating with the Plaintiff, his or her family or 

others. 

39. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendants constitute numerous and 

multiple violations of the Illinois Collections Agency Act, including every one of the above-cited 

provisions. 

40. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendants’ violations. 

COUNT III

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

41. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 

42. The acts, practices and conduct engaged in by the Defendants vis-à-vis the 

Plaintiff was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible 

bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized 

community. 

43. The foregoing conduct constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional 

distress under the laws of the State of Illinois. 

44. All acts of the Defendants and the Collectors complained of herein were 

committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, the Defendants are 

subject to imposition of punitive damages.

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
7 

COUNT III

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION INTO PRIVATE AFFAIRS

45. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

46. The Restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) defines intrusion upon seclusion as, 

“One who intentionally intrudes...upon the solitude or seclusion of another, or his private affairs 

or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be 

highly offensive to a reasonable person.” 

47. Illinois further recognizes the Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of 

privacy, thus the Defendants violated Illinois state law. 

48. The Defendants intentionally intruded upon the Plaintiff’s right to privacy by 

continually harassing the Plaintiff with the above-referenced telephone calls. 

49. The telephone calls made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff were so persistent and 

repeated with such frequency as to be considered, “hounding the plaintiff,” and, “a substantial 

burden to her existence,” thus satisfying the Restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) requirement 

for an invasion of privacy. 

50. The conduct of the Defendants in engaging in the illegal collection activities 

resulted in multiple invasions of privacy in such a way as would be considered highly offensive 

to a reasonable person. 

51. As a result of the intrusions and invasions, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual 

damages in an amount to be determined at trial from the Defendants. 

52. All acts of the Defendants and its agents were committed with malice, intent, 

wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, the Defendants are subject to punitive damages. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
8 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be awarded in the 

Plaintiff’s favor and against the Defendants as follows: 

1. Against the named the Defendants, jointly and severally, awarding the Plaintiff 

actual damages; 

2. Against each of the named the Defendants, awarding the Plaintiff statutory 

damages; 

3. Against the named Defendants, jointly and severally, awarding the Plaintiff 

recovery of the costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees ; 

4. Against the named the Defendants, jointly and severally, awarding the Plaintiff 

punitive damages in such amount as is found appropriate; and 

5. Granting the Plaintiff such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: December 20, 2011 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

By /s/ Sergei Lemberg 

 

 Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

 LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C. 

 1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor 

 Stamford, CT 06905 

 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Ext. 5500 

 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
9 

 IL ARDC: 6283299 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:11-cv-08992 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/20/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9