IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NACOLA MAGEE, and JAMES PETERSON, )

on behalf of plaintiffs and the class defined )

below, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Nacola Magee and James Peterson bring this action to secure

redress from unlawful collection practices engaged in by defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates

(“PRA”). Plaintiffs allege violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et

seq. (“FDCPA”). 

2. The FDCPA broadly prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection

methods; conduct which harasses, oppresses or abuses any debtor; and any false, deceptive or

misleading statements, in connection with the collection of a debt; it also requires debt collectors

to give debtors certain information. 15 U.S.C. §§1692d, 1692e, 1692f and 1692g. 

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

3. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. §1692k (FDCPA), 28 U.S.C.

§1331 (general federal question), and 28 U.S.C. §1337 (interstate commerce).

4. Venue and personal jurisdiction in this District are proper because:

a. Defendant’s collection communications and activities impacted

plaintiff Magee within this District;

b. Defendant does or transacts business within this District.

1

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Nacola Magee is an individual who resides in the Northern

District of Illinois.

6. Plaintiff James Peterson is an individual who resides in Gary, Indiana.

7. Defendant PRA is a limited liability company with offices at 120 

 Corporate Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23502. It does or transacts business in Illinois. 

8. Defendant PRA is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to

purchase allegedly defaulted debts originally owed to others and incurred for personal, family or

household purposes.

9. Defendant PRA pays an average of less than ten cents on the dollar for the

debts it purchases.

10. Defendant PRA then attempts to collect the allegedly purchased debts by

filing

suits on them.

11. Defendant PRA has been the plaintiff in 1,000 collection lawsuits that have

been filed in Cook County, Illinois between 9/8/11 and 1/25/12.

12. Defendant PRA regularly uses the mails and telephones in conducting its

business.

13. Defendant PRA is a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA.

FACTS- Nacola Magee

14. On or about October 3, 2011, PRA sent plaintiff Nacola Magee the letter

attached as Exhibit A.

15. Exhibit A sought to collect a purported credit card debt incurred for personal,

family or household purposes and not for business purposes.

16. If the debt is owed at all, it was incurred prior to 2004.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
FACTS- James Peterson

17. On or about August 22, 2011, PRA sent plaintiff James Peterson the letter

attached as Exhibit B , referring to an account ending in 6581.

18. Exhibit B sought to collect a purported credit card debt incurred for personal,

family or household purposes and not for business purposes.

19. If the debt is owed at all, it was incurred prior to 2005.

20. On or about August 29, 2011, PRA sent plaintiff James Peterson the letter

attached as Exhibit C, referring to an account ending in 1616.

21. Exhibit C sought to collect a purported credit card debt incurred for personal,

family or household purposes and not for business purposes.

22. If the debt is owed at all, it was incurred prior to 2005.

23. Defendant regularly seeks to collect credit card bills.

24. The statute of limitations on a credit card debt in Illinois is five years.

25. The statute of limitations on a credit card debt in Indiana and Wisconsin is

six years.

26. Defendant regularly attempts to collect debts on which the statute of

limitations has expired.

27. Nothing in Exhibits A, B or C disclosed that the debts were barred by the

statute of limitations.

28. The Federal Trade Commission has determined that “Most consumers do

not know their legal rights with respect to collection of old debts past the statute of limitations . . .

. When a collector tells a consumer that she owes money and demands payment, it may create the

misleading impression that the collector can sue the consumer in court to collect that debt.”

(http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm) The FTC entered into a consent decree with Asset

Acceptance, one of the largest debt buyers in the United States, requiring that it disclose to

consumers when it is attempting to collect debts that are barred by the statute of limitations. United

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
States of America (For the Federal Trade Commission) v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No.

8:12-cv-182-T-27EAJ (M.D.Fla.).

VIOLATION ALLEGED

29. Defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in violation of

15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f, by dunning consumers on timebarred debts without disclosure of that fact.

30. The nondisclosure is exacerbated by the offers of a “settlement” in Exhibits

B and C. An offer to settle implies a colorable obligation to pay.

31. Section 1692e provides:

§ 1692e. False or misleading representations [Section 807 of P.L.] 

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without

limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a

violation of this section: . . .

(2) The false representation of-- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; . . . 

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that

is not intended to be taken. . . .

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect

or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a

consumer. . . .

32.. Section 1692f provides:

§ 1692f. Unfair practices [Section 808 of P.L.] 

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect

or attempt to collect any debt. . . . 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

33. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)

and 23(b)(3). 

34. The class consists of (a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin (b)

to whom PRA (c) sent a letter seeking to collect a debt (d) which debt was (i) a credit card debt on

4

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
which the last payment had been made more than five years prior to the letter in Illinois or (ii) a

credit card debt on which the last payment had been made more than six years prior to the letter in

Indiana and Wisconsin (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this

action and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action.

35. On information and belief, the class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is not practicable.

36. There are questions of law and fact common to the class members, which

common questions predominate over any questions relating to individual class members. The

predominant common questions are (a) whether defendant attempts to collect time-barred debts

without disclosure of that fact and (b) whether such practice violates the FDCPA.

37. Plaintiffs’ claim is typical of the claims of the class members. All are based

on the same factual and legal theories.

38. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the class members. Plaintiffs

have retained counsel experienced in class actions and FDCPA litigation.

39. A class action is superior for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter,

in that:

a. Individual actions are not economically feasible.

b. Members of the class are likely to be unaware of their rights;

c. Congress intended class actions to be the principal enforcement

mechanism under the FDCPA.

WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class

members and against defendant for:

(1) Statutory damages;

(2) Actual damages, including all amounts paid on time-barred

debts;

(3) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;

5

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
(4) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

s/Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

Cassandra P. Miller

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, L.L.C.

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

6

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

Please be advised that all rights relating to attorney’s fees have been assigned to

counsel.

s/Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

7

Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7