IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Dorothy Hutchinson and Carolyn Ellis, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 5102

)

Razor Capital, LLC, a Minnesota )

limited liability company, Mercantile )

Adjustment Bureau, LLC, a New York )

limited liability company, and Frontline ) 

Asset Strategies, LLC, a Minnesota ) 

limited liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Dorothy Hutchinson and Carolyn Ellis, bring 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 allege:

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, Dorothy Hutchinson ("Hutchinson"), is a citizen of the State of 

California, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt that 

she allegedly owed for a GE Money Bank/QVC account, despite the fact that she was 

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
2

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.

4. Plaintiff, Carolyn Ellis ("Ellis"), is a citizen of the State of Texas, from 

whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt she allegedly owed

for a GE Money Bank/JC Penney account, despite the fact that she was represented by 

the legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic's LASPD program, located in 

Chicago, Illinois.

5. Defendant, Razor Capital, LLC (“Razor"), is a Minnesota 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. Razor 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 Razor 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, Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC (“MAB”), is a New York 

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, delinquent consumer debts. MAB 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 MAB 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.

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
3

7. Defendant, Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC (“Frontline”), is a Minnesota 

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, delinquent consumer debts. Frontline 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 Frontline 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.

8. Defendant Razor 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.

9. Defendants Razor, MAB and Frontline are 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, Razor,

MAB and Frontline each conduct substantial business in Illinois.

10. Defendants Razor, MAB and Frontline are licensed as debt collection 

agencies in the State of Illinois, see, record from the Illinois Division of Professional 

Regulation, attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, Defendants Razor, MAB and Frontline

each act as collection agencies in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Ms. Dorothy Hutchinson

11. Ms. Hutchinson is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

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

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
4

Bank/QVC account. At some point in time after that debt became delinquent, 

Defendant Razor bought Ms. Hutchinson’s GE Money Bank debt, and when Defendants 

Razor and Frontline began trying to collect the GE Money Bank 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. 

12. Specifically, Defendants Razor and Frontline sent Ms. Hutchinson an 

initial form collection letter, dated June 20, 2011, which demanded payment of the GE 

Money Bank debt from Ms. Hutchinson. A copy of this collection letter is attached as 

Exhibit C. 

13. Accordingly, on June 30, 2011, one of Ms. Hutchinson's attorneys at 

LASPD informed Defendants Razor and Frontline, via e-mail, that Ms. Hutchinson was 

represented by counsel, and directed Defendants to cease contacting her, and to cease 

all further collection activities because Ms. Hutchinson was forced, by her financial 

circumstances, to refuse to pay her unsecured debt. Copies of this e-mail and letter are

attached as Exhibit D. 

14. Either Defendant Razor ignored this notification, or Defendant Frontline 

failed to provide this information to Razor. Either way, Defendant Razor then had 

Defendant MAB send Ms. Hutchinson a collection letter, dated April 27, 2012, which 

demanded payment of the GE Money Bank debt. A copy of this collection letter is 

attached as Exhibit E. If Frontline properly notified Razor, then it will be dismissed from 

this Complaint and, if not, it should be held liable for the other Defendants’ subsequent 

actions. 

15. Accordingly, on May 17, 2012, Ms. Hutchinson's LASPD attorney again 

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
5

sent Defendants a letter, directing them to cease communications and to cease 

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

Ms. Carolyn Ellis

16. Ms. Ellis is a disabled senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who 

fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed to GE Money 

Bank/JC Penney. At some point in time after that debt became delinquent, Defendant 

Razor bought this debt, and when Defendants Razor and Frontline began trying to 

collect the GE Money Bank 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. 

17. Specifically, Defendants Razor and Frontline sent Ms. Ellis an initial form 

collection letter, dated June 20, 2011, demanding payment of the GE Money Bank/JC 

Penney debt. A copy of this collection letter is attached as Exhibit G. 

18. Accordingly, on July 24, 2011, one of Ms. Ellis’ attorneys at LASPD 

informed Defendants Razor and Frontline that Ms. Ellis was represented by counsel, 

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

activities because Ms. Ellis was forced, by her financial circumstances, to refuse to pay 

her unsecured debt. Copies of this letter and fax confirmation are attached as Exhibit 

H. 

19. Either Defendant Razor ignored this notification, or Defendant Frontline 

failed to provide this information to Razor. Either way, Defendant Razor then had 

Defendant MAB send Ms. Ellis a collection letter, dated April 27, 2012, which demanded 

payment of the GE Money Bank debt. A copy of this collection letter is attached as 

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
6

Exhibit I. If Frontline properly notified Razor, then it will be dismissed from this 

Complaint and, if not, it should be held liable for the other Defendants’ subsequent 

actions. 

20. Accordingly, on May 21, 2012, Ms. Ellis’ LASPD attorney again sent 

Defendants a letter, directing them to cease communications and to cease collections. 

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

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

year of the date of this Complaint. 

22. 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

23. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege ¶¶ 1-22.

24. 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).

25. Here, the letters from Ms. Hutchinson's and Ms. Ellis’ agent/attorney, 

LASPD, told Defendants to cease communications and cease collections. By 

continuing to communicate regarding these debts and demanding payment, Defendants 

violated § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

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

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
7

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

27. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege ¶¶ 1-22.

28. 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). 

29. Defendants knew, or readily could have known, that Ms. Hutchinson and 

Ms. Ellis were represented by counsel in connection with their debts because their

attorneys at LASPD had informed Defendants, in writing, that Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. 

Ellis were represented by counsel, and had directed a cessation of communications with 

Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Ellis. By directly sending collection letters to Ms. Hutchinson 

and Ms. Ellis, despite being advised that they were represented by counsel, Defendants 

violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

30. Defendants’ violations 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.

COUNT III

Violations Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA -- 

Use of Unfair or Unconscionable Collection Means 

31. Plaintiff adopts and realleges¶¶ 1-22.

32. Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
8

unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f(1). 

33. Defendant Frontline’s failure to notify Defendants Razor and MAB that the 

accounts were subject to cease collections and cease communications notices, and 

attorney representation notices, or Defendants Razor’s and MAB’s failure to take head 

of those notices, constitutes the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect a 

debt, in violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA.

34. Defendants’ violations of § 1692f 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

Plaintiffs, Dorothy Hutchinson and Carolyn Ellis, pray that this Court:

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

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Hutchinson and Ellis, and against 

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

Plaintiffs, Dorothy Hutchinson and Carolyn Ellis, demand trial by jury.

Dorothy Hutchinson and Carolyn Ellis,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___________

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

Dated: June 26, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
9

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-05102 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/26/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9