IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Eleonore Jasiorkowski, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 3470

)

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., a ) 

New York corporation, )

)

Defendant. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Eleonore Jasiorkowski, 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) the acts and transactions 

occurred here; b) Plaintiff resides here; and, c) Defendant transacts business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Eleonore Jasiorkowski (“Jasiorkowski"), is a citizen of the State of 

Illinois, from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt allegedly 

owed for a Talbots’ credit account, despite the 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-03470 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, Sunrise Credit Services, Inc., (“Sunrise”), 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, 

delinquent consumer debts. Defendant Sunrise operates a nationwide debt collection 

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

thousands of consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant Sunrise was acting 

as a debt collector as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from 

Plaintiff.

5. Defendant has failed to maintain authorization to conduct business in 

Illinois, see, record from the Illinois Secretary of State, attached as Exhibit A. 

Nonetheless, in fact, Sunrise conducts business in Illinois.

6. Defendant Sunrise is, however, licensed as a collection agency in Illinois, 

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

In fact, Sunrise acts as a collection agency in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Ms. Jasiorkowski is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who 

fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed to Talbots. When 

Sunrise began trying to collect the Talbot’s account from Mr. Jasiorkowski, by sending 

her a collection letter, dated January 26, 2010, she sought the assistance of the legal 

aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic’s LASPD program, regarding her financial 

difficulties and Defendant Sunrise’s collection actions. A copy of Defendant Sunrise’s 

collection letter is attached as Exhibit C.

8. Accordingly, on February 11, 2010, one of Ms. Jasiorkowski's attorneys at 

Case: 1:12-cv-03470 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
3

LASPD informed Sunrise, in writing, that Ms. Jasiorkowski was represented by counsel, 

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

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

refuse to pay her unsecured debts. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are 

attached as Exhibit D. 

9. Nonetheless, Defendant Sunrise sent Ms. Jasiorkowski a collection letter, 

dated March 28, 2012, which demanded payment of the Talbots’ debt. A copy of this 

collection letter is attached as Exhibit E.

10. Accordingly, on April 20, 2012, one of Ms. Jasiorkowski’s LASPD 

attorneys had to write to Defendant Sunrise to again demand that it cease 

communications and cease collection of the Talbots’ debt. Copies of this letter and fax 

confirmation are attached as Exhibit F.

11. Defendant Sunrise’s collection actions complained of herein occurred 

within one year of the date of this Complaint. 

12. Defendant Sunrise’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

13. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-12.

14. 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 

Case: 1:12-cv-03470 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
4

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

15. Here, the letter from Ms. Jasiorkowski’s attorney, LASPD, told Defendant

Sunrise to cease communications and cease collections (Exhibit D). By continuing to 

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

Sunrise violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

16. Defendant Sunrise’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

17. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-12.

18. 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 debts and has knowledge of, or can 

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

19. Defendant Sunrise knew that Ms. Jasiorkowski was represented by 

counsel in connection with her debt because her attorneys at LASPD had informed 

Defendant, in writing (Exhibit D), that she was represented by counsel, and had directed 

Defendant Sunrise to cease directly communicating with her. By directly sending Ms. 

Jasiorkowski the March 28, 2012 collection letter (Exhibit E), despite being advised that 

she was represented by counsel, Defendant Sunrise violated § 1692c (a)(2) of the 

FDCPA.

20. Defendant Sunrise’s violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders it 

Case: 1:12-cv-03470 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
5

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

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Eleonore Jasiorkowski, prays that this Court:

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

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

Sunrise, 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, Eleonore Jasiorkowski, demands trial by jury.

Eleonore Jasiorkowski,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps________

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Dated: May 7, 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-03470 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5