1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RENE RODRIGUEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. )

)

CHASE BANK USA, N.A., )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, RENE RODRIGUEZ, by and through his attorneys, LARRY 

P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD., and for his complaint against the Defendant, CHASE 

BANK USA, N.A., Plaintiff states as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for actual and statutory damages for violations of the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter “TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §227, et seq.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. Jurisdiction arises under the TCPA pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

III. PARTIES

4. RENE RODRIGUEZ, (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is an individual who resides in the 

City of Cicero, County of Cook, State of Illinois.

5. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., (hereinafter, “Defendant”) is a business entity 

engaged in the collection of debt within the State of Illinois. Defendant is incorporated in the 

State of Delaware.

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
2

6. At all relevant times, Defendant acted through its duly authorized agents, 

employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, 

subrogees, representatives, and insurers.

IV. ALLEGATIONS

7. From one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the date of 

filing of the present matter, and on multiple occasions therein, Defendant initiated multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt.

8. During the course of the aforesaid time period, the telephone calls initiated by 

Defendant were placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.

9. Upon information and belief, at the time Defendant initiated the aforesaid 

telephone calls to Plaintiff, Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the telephone 

number to which it was calling was Plaintiff’s telephone number.

10. The debt on which Defendant was attempting to collect was incurred by an 

individual other than Plaintiff. 

11. Plaintiff does not currently have any accounts with Defendant.

12. From one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the date of 

filing of the present matter, Plaintiff did not have any accounts with Defendant. 

13. Plaintiff is not legally responsible and/or obligated to pay the debt on which 

Defendant was attempting to collect.

14. Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with consent to initiate telephone calls to 

his present cellular telephone number.

15. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with his present cellular telephone number in 

relation to the debt on which Defendant was attempting to collect. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
3

16. Alternatively, any accounts Plaintiff may have previously held with Defendant 

were closed before one (1) year prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.

17. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has any accounts with Defendant, at the time the 

aforesaid accounts were opened by Plaintiff, Plaintiff had a different cellular telephone number 

than the cellular telephone number he presently has.

18. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has any accounts with Defendant, at the time the 

aforesaid accounts were opened by Plaintiff, Plaintiff had a different cellular telephone number 

than the cellular telephone number he has had for the past year prior to the commencement of 

this lawsuit.

19. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has any accounts with Defendant, Plaintiff has never 

provided Defendant with consent to initiate telephone calls to his present cellular telephone 

number.

20. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has any accounts with Defendant, Plaintiff never 

provided Defendant with his present cellular telephone number in relation to the debt on which 

Defendant was attempting to collect. 

21. From one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the date of 

filing of the present matter, and on multiple occasions therein, Defendant engaged in multiple 

telephone conversations with Plaintiff.

22. During the course of the aforesaid telephone calls, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff 

informed Defendant that it had called the wrong telephone number.

23. During the course of the aforesaid telephone calls, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff 

informed Defendant that he did not owe the debt on which Defendant was attempting to collect.

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
4

24. During the course of the aforesaid telephone calls, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff 

informed Defendant that he did not have an account with Defendant.

25. During the course of the aforesaid telephone calls, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff 

requested that Defendant cease initiating telephone calls to his cellular telephone number.

26. During the course of the aforesaid telephone calls, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff 

requested that Defendant remove his cellular telephone number from its call list.

27. Subsequent to the aforesaid telephone calls between Plaintiff and Defendant, 

Defendant had information in its possession that Plaintiff was not the individual who allegedly 

owed the debt on which it was attempting to collect. 

28. Subsequent to the aforesaid telephone calls between Plaintiff and Defendant, 

Defendant had information in its possession that Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number was not 

the telephone number at which Defendant could reach the individual who allegedly owed the 

debt on which it was attempting to collect. 

29. Subsequent to the aforesaid telephone calls between Plaintiff and Defendant, 

Defendant was cognizant that Plaintiff was not the individual who allegedly owed the debt on 

which it was attempting to collect. 

30. Subsequent to the aforesaid telephone calls between Plaintiff and Defendant, 

Defendant was cognizant that Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number was not the telephone 

number at which Defendant could reach the individual who allegedly owed the debt on which it 

was attempting to collect. 

31. Despite Plaintiff having advised Defendant of the aforesaid information, on 

multiple occasions, from one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the 

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
5

date of filing of the present matter, Defendant continued to initiate telephone calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number in a further attempt to collect the debt.

32. During the aforesaid time period, Plaintiff ascertained the multiple telephone calls 

were from Defendant by viewing the telephone number on the caller identification on Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone.

33. The caller identification on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone identified that the 

multiple telephone calls had originated from Defendant.

34. During the aforesaid time period, Defendant also left voicemail messages for 

Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number.

35. During the aforesaid time period, Plaintiff also ascertained the multiple telephone 

calls were from Defendant by listening to the voicemail messages Defendant left for Plaintiff 

wherein Defendant stated it was calling in relation to a “Chase account.”

36. During the aforesaid time period, Defendant left multiple voicemail messages for 

Plaintiff wherein Defendant stated it was calling in relation to a “Chase account ending in 7840.”

37. During the aforesaid time period, Plaintiff did not have an account with 

Defendant ending in 7840.

38. During the aforesaid time period, Defendant initiated multiple telephone calls to 

Plaintiff in a single week.

39. During the aforesaid time period, Defendant initiated multiple telephone calls to 

Plaintiff in a single day.

40. From April 17, 2012 through May 25, 2012, on the following dates, Defendant 

initiated telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in an attempt to collect the debt he 

allegedly owed:

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
6

a. On or about April 17, 2012, Defendant initiated two (2) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

b. On or about April 18, 2012, Defendant initiated two (2) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; 

c. On or about April 19, 2012, Defendant initiated three (3) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; 

d. On or about April 20, 2012, Defendant initiated two (2) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; 

e. On or about April 22, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

f. On or about April 23, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

g. On or about April 24, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

h. On or about April 25, 2012, Defendant initiated two (2) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; 

i. On or about April 26, 2012, Defendant initiated three (3) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; 

j. On or about May 3, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

k. On or about May 5, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
7

l. On or about May 6, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

m. On or about May 8, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

n. On or about May 9, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

o. On or about May 10, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

p. On or about May 11, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

q. On or about May 12, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

r. On or about May 14, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

s. On or about May 15, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

t. On or about May 16, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

u. On or about May 17, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

v. On or about May 19, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
8

w. On or about May 22, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

x. On or about May 23, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number;

y. On or about May 24, 2012, Defendant initiated two (2) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number; and,

z. On or about May 25, 2012, Defendant initiated three (3) telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.

41. Upon information and belief, during the aforesaid time period, Defendant knew or 

reasonably should have known Plaintiff would find Defendant’s conduct, in initiating multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, to be harassing. 

42. Upon information and belief, during the aforesaid time period, Defendant knew or 

reasonably should have known Plaintiff would find Defendant’s conduct, in initiating multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, to be abusive. 

43. From one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the date of 

filing of the present matter, and on multiple occasions therein, Defendant initiated multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff between the hours of 1:00 a.m. through 7:30 a.m., Central Standard 

Time.

44. From one (1) year prior to the commencement of this matter through to the date of 

filing of the present matter, and on multiple occasions therein, Plaintiff was residing in the 

Central Standard Time zone.

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
9

45. From April 17, 2012 through May 25, 2012, on the following dates and at the 

following times, Defendant initiated telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in an attempt 

to collect the debt he allegedly owed:

a. On or about April 19, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 4:17 a.m., Central Standard Time;

b. On or about April 19, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 5:31 a.m., Central Standard Time.

c. On or about April 20, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 4:17 a.m., Central Standard Time;

d. On or about April 20, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 4:38 a.m., Central Standard Time;

e. On or about April 24, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 6:03 a.m., Central Standard Time;

f. On or about April 25, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 1:34 a.m., Central Standard Time;

g. On or about April 26, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 1:46 a.m., Central Standard Time;

h. On or about April 26, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to 

Plaintiff at approximately 1:52 a.m., Central Standard Time;

i. On or about May 3, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 4:34 a.m., Central Standard Time;

j. On or about May 5, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 5:33 a.m., Central Standard Time;

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
10

k. On or about May 6, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 7:17 a.m., Central Standard Time;

l. On or about May 8, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 5:17 a.m., Central Standard Time;

m. On or about May 10, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 1:32 a.m., Central Standard Time; and,

n. On or about May 25, 2012, Defendant initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff 

at approximately 1:46 a.m., Central Standard Time

46. Upon information and belief, during the aforesaid time period, Defendant knew or 

reasonably should have known Plaintiff would find Defendant’s conduct, in initiating multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone between the hours of 1:00 a.m. through 7:30 a.m., 

Central Standard Time, to be harassing. 

47. Upon information and belief, during the aforesaid time period, Defendant knew or 

reasonably should have known Plaintiff would find Defendant’s conduct, in initiating multiple 

telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone between the hours of 1:00 a.m. through 7:30 a.m., 

Central Standard Time, to be abusive. 

48. During the course of the aforesaid time period, Plaintiff was upset, frustrated and 

inconvenienced at Defendant’s conduct, as delineated above, in initiating multiple telephone 

calls to his cellular telephone number to collect a debt Plaintiff was not legally obligated to pay.

49. Defendant made and/or placed telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number, in an effort to collect from Plaintiff an obligation, or alleged obligation, owed or due, or 

asserted to be owed or due to Defendant.

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
11

50. Defendant willfully and knowingly utilized an automatic telephone dialing system 

to make and/or place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number, in an effort to 

collect from Plaintiff an obligation, or alleged obligation, owed or due, or asserted to be owed or 

due to Defendant.

51. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by willfully and knowingly 

utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system to make and/or place telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RENE RODRIGUEZ, by and through his attorneys, 

respectfully prays for judgment as follows:

a. All actual compensatory damages suffered;

b. Statutory damages of $500.00 per violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b)(3)(B);

c. Statutory damages of $1500.00 per violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b)(3)(C);

d. Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

e. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court.

V. JURY DEMAND

52. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

RENE RODRIGUEZ

By: s/ David M. Marco

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: May 30, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
12

David M. Marco (Atty. No.: 6273315)

LARRY P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2940

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 546-6539

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-Mail: dmarco@smithlaw.us

Case: 1:12-cv-04228 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/31/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12