IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Maria Rubio-Mendez, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 2906

)

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., )

an Ohio limited professional association, )

LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited )

liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Maria Rubio-Mendez, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection 

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

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

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) Defendants reside and transact business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Maria Rubio-Mendez ("Rubio-Mendez"), is a citizen of the State 

of Virginia, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt 

allegedly owed originally for a Chase Bank credit card, which was then allegedly owed 

to a bad debt buyer, LVNV Funding, despite the fact that she was represented by the 

Case: 1:12-cv-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic's Legal Advocates for Seniors and 

People with Disabilities program ("LASPD"), located in Chicago, Illinois.

4. Defendant, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (“Weltman”), is an Ohio

limited professional association, and law firm, 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, 

Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, Weltman operates a nationwide delinquent 

debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every 

state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. See, Weltman’s website materials, 

attached as Exhibit A. In fact, Defendant Weltman was acting as a debt collector, as 

that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer debt it attempted to 

collect from Plaintiff. 

5. Defendant, LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV"), 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, directly or 

indirectly, delinquent consumer debts. LVNV operates a nationwide delinquent debt 

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

state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant LVNV was acting 

as a debt collector, as that term is defined in the FDCPA, as to the delinquent consumer 

debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. 

6. Defendant LVNV is a bad debt buyer, that buys large portfolios of 

defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then collects upon through 

other collection agencies, such as Defendant Weltman.

Case: 1:12-cv-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

7. Defendants Weltman and LVNV are each authorized to conduct business 

in the State of Illinois and maintain registered agents within the State of Illinois, see, 

records from the Illinois Secretary of State, attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, 

Defendants Weltman and LVNV both conduct extensive and substantial business in 

Illinois.

8. Defendant LVNV is also licensed as a debt collection agency in the State 

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

Exhibit C. In fact, Defendant LVNV acts as a collection agency in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Rubio-Mendez is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who 

fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed originally for a Chase 

Bank account. At some point in time, Defendant LVNV bought Ms. Rubio-Mendez’s

Chase Bank debt after she defaulted on it, and when Defendant LVNV began trying to 

collect this debt from her, she sought the assistance of legal aid attorneys at the 

Chicago Legal Clinic’s LASPD program, regarding her financial difficulties and 

Defendants’ collection actions.

10. Accordingly, on December 13, 2010, one of Ms. Rubio-Mendez's attorneys 

at LASPD informed Defendants that Ms. Rubio-Mendez was represented by counsel, 

and directed Defendants to cease contacting her and to cease all further collection 

activities because Ms. Rubio-Mendez was forced, by her financial circumstances, to 

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

attached as Exhibit D. 

11. Nonetheless, despite being advised that Ms. Rubio-Mendez was

Case: 1:12-cv-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

represented by counsel and refused to pay the debt, Defendants sent Ms. RubioMendez a collection letter, dated August 12, 2011, which demanded payment of the 

LVNV/Chase Bank debt. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit E.

12. Accordingly, on October 17, 2011, one of Ms. Rubio-Mendez's LASPD 

attorneys wrote Defendants again to demand that it cease collection of the debt. 

Copies of this letter and fax confirmations are attached as Exhibit F.

13. Defendants’ collection actions complained of herein occurred within one 

year of the date of this Complaint. 

14. Defendants’ 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

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

16. 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).

17. Here, the letter from Ms. Rubio-Mendez's agent, LASPD, told Defendants

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

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

violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

18. Defendants’ violation of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA renders them liable for 

Case: 1:12-cv-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

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). 

21. Defendants knew, or readily could have known, that Ms. Rubio-Mendez

was represented by counsel in connection with her debts because her attorneys at 

LASPD had informed Defendants in writing (Exhibit D), that Ms. Rubio-Mendez was 

represented by counsel, and had directed a cessation of communications with Ms. 

Rubio-Mendez. By sending a collection letter (Exhibit E) to Ms. Rubio-Mendez, despite 

being advised that she was represented by counsel, Defendants violated § 1692c(a)(2) 

of the FDCPA.

22. Defendants’ violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders them liable 

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

U.S.C. § 1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Maria Rubio-Mendez, prays that this Court:

1. Find that Defendants’ debt collection actions violated the FDCPA;

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Rubio-Mendez, and against

Case: 1:12-cv-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

Defendants, 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, Maria Rubio-Mendez, demands trial by jury.

Maria Rubio-Mendez,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

Dated: April 19, 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-02906 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6