IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

John Marshall, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 2888

)

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a )

Delaware limited liability company, )

)

Defendant. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, John Marshall, 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, John Marshall ("Marshall"), is a citizen of the State of West 

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

for a Bank of America credit card, despite the fact that he 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-02888 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”), 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. From its offices located in Chicago, Illinois and 

nine other states, Defendant PRA 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 PRA was acting as a debt collector as to the 

delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

5. Defendant PRA is a bad debt buyer that specializes in buying large 

portfolios of delinquent consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then collects 

by sending collection letters, calling the consumers on the phone, and by filing collection 

lawsuits.

6. Defendant PRA is authorized to conduct business in Illinois, and maintains 

a registered agent here, see, record from the Illinois Secretary of State, attached as 

Exhibit A. In fact, PRA conducts business in Illinois.

7. Moreover, Defendant PRA is licensed as a collection agency in Illinois, 

see, record from the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation, attached as Exhibit B. 

In fact, PRA acts as a debt collection agency in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Mr. Marshall is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying his bills, including a debt he owed for a Bank of America credit card. 

At some point in time after that debt became delinquent, it was purchased by Defendant 

PRA, and when PRA began trying to collect this debt from Mr. Marshall, he sought the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02888 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
3

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

regarding her financial difficulties and Defendant PRA’s collection actions. 

9. Accordingly, on May 12, 2009, one of Mr. Marshall's attorneys at LASPD 

informed PRA, in writing, that Mr. Marshall was represented by counsel, and directed 

PRA to cease contacting him, and to cease all further collection activities because Mr. 

Marshall was forced, by his financial circumstances, to refuse to pay his unsecured 

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

10. Nonetheless, Defendant PRA sent a collection letter, dated August 17, 

2011, directly to Mr. Marshall, which demanded payment of the Bank of America debt. 

A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D.

11. Accordingly, on October 20, 2011, one of Mr. Marshall’s LASPD attorneys 

had to write to Defendant PRA again to demand that it cease collection of the debt. 

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

12. Defendant PRA’s collection actions complained of herein occurred within 

one year of the date of this Complaint. 

13. Defendant PRA’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 And Cease Collections

14. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-13.

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

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

Case: 1:12-cv-02888 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
4

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

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

16. Here, the letter from Mr. Marshall's, agent, LASPD, told Defendant PRA to 

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

communicate regarding this debt and demanding payment (Exhibit D), Defendant PRA

violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

17. Defendant PRA’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

18. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-13.

19. 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). 

20. Defendant PRA knew that Mr. Marshall was represented by counsel in 

connection with his debts because his attorneys at LASPD had informed Defendant, in 

writing (Exhibit C), that he was represented by counsel, and had directed Defendant 

PRA to cease directly communicating with him. By directly sending Mr. Marshall a 

collection letter (Exhibit D), despite being advised that he was represented by counsel, 

Defendant PRA violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

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

Case: 1:12-cv-02888 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
5

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

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, John Marshall, prays that this Court:

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

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

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, John Marshall, demands trial by jury.

John Marshall,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps_______

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Dated: April 18, 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-02888 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5