1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GARY HANLEY on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-4158

JURY DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

CLASS ACTION

1. Plaintiff Gary Hanley brings this action against Green Tree Servicing, LLC (“Green 

Tree”) to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 

227 (“TCPA”) arising out of improper and unsolicited autodialed calls to plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone, after plaintiff demanded that the calls stop. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has federal question jurisdiction because this action is brought 

pursuant to a federal statute.

3. Venue is proper because a substantial portion of the events complained of 

occurred in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in this District. Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number is 630-xxx-5690.

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

5. Defendant is the servicer of the mortgage for plaintiff’s home, which is located in 

this District. 

FACTS

6. The TCPA prohibits the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or 

automatic or prerecorded voice to call any cellular telephone. 

7. Defendant called plaintiff’s cellular telephone on multiple occasions over the 

past four years using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded 

voice, after plaintiff demanded that the calls stop. 

8. Upon information and belief, defendant also called other persons’ cellular 

telephones using telephone equipment regulated by the TCPA, after those persons asked that 

the telephone calls cease.

COUNT I – TCPA

9. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint.

10. It is a violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227(b) to call a person's cellular telephone 

using an “automatic telephone dialing system” and/or an “artificial or prerecorded voice,”

particularly after the called party requests that such calls cease. 

11. Defendant called plaintiff and the class using equipment and messages that are 

regulated by the TCPA, and failed to honor requests that such calls stop.

12. Plaintiff and the class are entitled to have their rights, status and legal relations 

under the TCPA relating to defendant's calling of cell phones using an automatic dialing system, 

and to an injunction stopping the illegal activity.

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

13. The violations alleged herein were negligent, or alternatively, they were willful. 

47 U.S.C. §312(f)(1).

Class Allegations

14. Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of a class, which consists of:

All persons with Illinois area code phone numbers who defendant or some person on its 

behalf called on their cell phone using a device that had the capacity to dial telephone 

numbers without human intervention, and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice, 

after defendant had received a demand to stop, where any such call happened within 

four years of the filing of this complaint, ongoing. 

15. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and 

predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member of the class, including 

plaintiff. Such questions common to the Class include, but are not limited to: 

a. Whether defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system and/or

artificial or prerecorded voice as that those terms are defined in the TCPA and 

applicable FCC regulations and orders;

b. Whether a person may validly demand that such calls stop; and

c. Damages, including whether the violation was willful. 

16. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has 

no interests that might conflict with the interests of the class. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing 

his claims vigorously, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and 

complex litigation. 

17. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions 

would entail. 

18. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class 

action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists 

for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

19. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby 

making relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Prosecution of separate actions 

by individual members of the class, should they realize their rights have been violated, would 

likely create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members 

of the class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct. 

20. The identities of the class members are identifiable from defendant's records.

21. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of himself and 

the class and against defendants that provides the following relief:

a. Statutory damages of $500 per violation, and up to $1,500 per violation if

proven to be willful; 

b. A permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from violating the TCPA in 

the future through calling cellular phones using an automatic telephone dialing 

system and/or a prerecorded voice message; 

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

c. A declaration that defendants, and each of them, used an automatic 

telephone dialing system, and violated the TCPA in calling plaintiff and the class; 

and

d. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Alexander H. Burke

BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 729-5288

(312) 729-5289 (fax)

ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands that the defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all 

recordings, data, emails, recordings, phone records, dialer records, documents and all other 

tangible things that relate to the allegations herein, plaintiff or the putative class members, or

the making of telephone calls, the events described herein, any third party associated with any 

telephone call, campaign, account, sale or file associated with plaintiff or the putative class 

members, and any account or number or symbol relating to any of them. These materials are 

very likely relevant to the litigation of this claim. If defendant is aware of any third party that 

has possession, custody or control of any such materials, plaintiff demands that defendant 

request that such third party also take steps to preserve the materials. This demand shall not 

narrow the scope of any independent document preservation duties of the defendant.

/s/Alexander H. Burke

Case: 1:12-cv-04158 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/29/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6