IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Maudy Binns, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 1718

)

John C. Bonewicz, P.C., an Illinois ) 

professional corporation, and CACH, )

LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,)

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Maudy Binns, 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, Maudy Binns ("Binns"), is a citizen of the State of Florida, from 

whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt owed originally for 

purchases made at City Furniture that were financed via a GE Money Bank account, 

which was then allegedly owed to a bad debt buyer, CACH, LLC. The Defendants 

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

collection actions took place despite the fact that Ms. Binns 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, and had told 

the Defendants to cease collections and cease communications.

4. Defendant, John C. Bonewicz, P.C. (“Bonewicz”), is an Illinois professional 

corporation, 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 Chicago, Illinois, Bonewicz 

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 Bonewicz 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, CACH, LLC (“CACH"), is a Colorado 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. CACH 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 CACH 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 CACH 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 Bonewicz.

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

7. Defendants Bonewicz and CACH are both 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 A. In fact, 

Bonewicz and CACH each conduct extensive and substantial business in Illinois.

8. Defendant CACH is licensed as a debt collection agency in the State of 

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

Exhibit B. In fact, Defendant CACH acts as a collection agency in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Binns is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying her bills, including a debt she owed originally for a GE Money Bank

account. At some point in time, Defendant CACH bought Ms. Binns’ GE Money Bank

debt, and when Defendants began trying to collect that debt from her, by calling her 

and/or sending her a collection letter, dated February 2, 2012, she sought the 

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

regarding her financial difficulties and Defendants’ collection actions. A copy of this 

February 2, 2012 collection letter is attached as Exhibit C.

10. Accordingly, on February 6, 2012, one of Ms. Binns' attorneys at LASPD 

informed Defendants that Ms. Binns was represented by counsel, and directed 

Defendants to cease contacting her, and to cease all further collection activities 

because Ms. Binns 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. Undeterred, Defendants continued to call Ms. Binns directly several times 

in an attempt to collect the GE Money Bank debt from her, including, but not limited to a 

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

call on February 14, 2012, by one of the Defendants’ debt collectors, “Ms. Holliman”, 

who called Ms. Binns from phone number 224-534-8030, ext. 7227, to demand payment 

of the GE Money Bank debt.

12. Accordingly, on February 14, 2012, Ms. Binns' LASPD attorney had to 

send Defendants another letter, directing them to cease communications and to cease 

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

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. Binns' agent/attorney, LASPD, told Defendants to 

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

communicate regarding this debt and demanding payment, Defendants violated § 

1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

18. Defendants’ violations of § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA render them liable for 

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 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. Binns was 

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

had informed Defendants, in writing (Exhibit D), that Ms. Binns was represented by 

counsel, and had directed a cessation of communications with Ms. Binns. By directly 

calling Ms. Binns, 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 render them liable for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See, 15 U.S.C. §

1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Maudy Binns, prays that this Court:

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

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Binns, and against Defendants, for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by §

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and,

3. Grant such further relief as deemed just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Maudy Binns, demands trial by jury.

Maudy Binns,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

Dated: March 8, 2012

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 S. Lewis Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

mephilipps@aol.com

Case: 1:12-cv-01718 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6