IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

John Marshall, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 2890

)

NCO Financial Systems, Inc., a )

Pennsylvania corporation, )

)

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) 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 

to American Express, 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-02890 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, NCO Financial Systems, Inc., (“NCO”), is a Pennsylvania

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. From its offices in Illinois, and 31 other states, as well as

11 foreign countries, Defendant NCO 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 NCO was acting as a debt 

collector as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff.

5. Defendant NCO 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, NCO conducts business in Illinois.

6. Moreover, Defendant NCO is licensed as a collection agency in Illinois, 

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

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

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

behind on paying his bills, including a debt he owed to American Express. When NCO

began trying to collect the American Express debt from Mr. Marshall, by sending him a 

form debt collection letter, dated August 12, 2008, he sought the assistance of the legal 

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

difficulties and Defendant NCO’s collection actions. A copy of NCO’s August 12, 2008 

letter is attached as Exhibit C.

8. Accordingly, on September 14, 2008, one of Mr. Marshall's attorneys at 

Case: 1:12-cv-02890 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
3

LASPD informed NCO, in writing, that Mr. Marshall was represented by counsel, and 

directed NCO 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 debts. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit D. 

9. Nonetheless, Defendant NCO sent Mr. Marshall a collection letter, dated 

July 17, 2011, which demanded payment of the American Express debt. A copy of this 

collection letter is attached as Exhibit E.

10. Accordingly, on October 19, 2011, one of Mr. Marshall’s LASPD attorneys 

had to write to Defendant NCO again to demand that it cease communications and 

cease collection of the debts. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as 

Exhibit F.

11. Defendant NCO’s collection actions complained of herein occurred within 

one year of the date of this Complaint. 

12. Defendant NCO’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 

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

Case: 1:12-cv-02890 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
4

15. Here, the letter from Mr. Marshall's, agent/attorney, LASPD, told 

Defendant NCO to cease communications and cease collections (Exhibit D). By 

continuing to communicate regarding this debt and demanding payment, Defendant

NCO violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

16. Defendant NCO’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 NCO knew that Mr. Marshall was represented by counsel in 

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

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

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

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

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

20. Defendant NCO’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.

Case: 1:12-cv-02890 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, John Marshall, prays that this Court:

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

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

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-02890 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5