IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Wendle Murphy, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 12 C 3007

)

CIGPF I Corp., a New York corporation, )

American Coradius International, LLC, a )

Delaware limited liability company, and )

Client Services, Inc., a Missouri )

corporation, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Wendle Murphy, 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, Wendle Murphy ("Murphy"), is a citizen of the State of Virginia, 

from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, which was 

then allegedly owed to a bad debt buyer, CIGPF I Corp., despite the fact that she was 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 1 of 7 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. Defendant, CIGPF I Corp. (“CIGPFI"), is a New York corporation 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. CIGPFI 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 CIGPFI 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, American Coradius International (“ACI”), is a Delaware 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. ACI 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 ACI 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, Client Services, Inc. (“Client Services”), is a Missouri 

corporation, 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. Client Services operates a nationwide delinquent debt 

collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
3

state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. In fact, Defendant Client Services 

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.

7. Defendant CIGPFI is a bad debt buyer that acquires portfolios of defaulted 

consumer debts, which it then collects upon through other collection agencies, such as 

Defendants ACI and Client Services.

8. Defendants are all 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, CIGPFI, ACI and Client 

Services each conduct extensive and substantial business in Illinois.

9. Defendants ACI and Client Services are each licensed as debt collection 

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

Regulation, attached as Group Exhibit B. In fact, Defendants ACI and Client Services

act as collection agencies in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Ms. Murphy is a senior citizen, with limited assets and income, who fell 

behind on paying her bills. At some point in time, Defendant CIGPFI bought/obtained

one of Ms. Murphy’s delinquent credit card debts (likely a Providian credit card), and 

when Defendant CIGPFI began trying to collect the debt from her, by having Defendant 

ACI send Ms. Murphy collection letters, dated June 7, 2011 and November 22, 2011,

she sought the assistance of legal aid attorneys at the Chicago Legal Clinic’s LASPD 

program, regarding her financial difficulties and Defendants’ collection actions. Copies

of the June 7, 2011 and November 22, 2011 collection letters are attached as Group 

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
4

Exhibit C. 

11. Accordingly, on December 28, 2011, one of Ms. Murphy's attorneys at 

LASPD informed Defendants CIGPFI and ACI that Ms. Murphy was represented by 

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

collection activities because Ms. Murphy 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. 

12. Either Defendant CIGPFI ignored this notification, or Defendant ACI failed 

to provide this information to CIGPFI. Either way, Defendant CIGPFI then had 

Defendant Client Services send Ms. Murphy a collection letter, dated January 5, 2012, 

which demanded payment of the debt. A copy of this collection letter is attached as 

Exhibit E. If ACI properly notified CIGPFI, then it will be dismissed from this Complaint 

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

13. Accordingly, on February 22, 2012, Ms. Murphy's LASPD attorney again 

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

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

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

year of the date of this Complaint. 

15. 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).

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
5

COUNT I

Violation Of § 1692c(c) Of The FDCPA --

Failure To Cease Communications And Cease Collections

16. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-15.

17. 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).

18. Here, the letters from Ms. Murphy's agent/attorney, LASPD, told 

Defendants to cease communications and cease collections. By continuing to 

communicate regarding this debt and demanding payment, Defendants violated § 

1692c(c) of the FDCPA.

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

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

20. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-15.

21. 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). 

22. Defendants knew, or readily could have known, that Ms. Murphy was 

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

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
6

had informed Defendants, in writing, that Ms. Murphy was represented by counsel, and 

had directed a cessation of communications with Ms. Murphy. By directly sending a 

collection letter to Ms. Murphy, despite being advised that she was represented by

counsel, Defendants violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

23. 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 

24. Plaintiff adopts and realleges¶¶ 1-15.

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

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

1692f(1). 

26. Defendant ACI’s failure to notify Defendants CIGPFI and Client Services

that the account was subject to a cease collections, cease communications and 

attorney representation notice, or Defendants CIGPFI’s and Client Services’ failure to 

take heed of that notice, constitutes unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt, in 

violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA.

27. 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

Plaintiff, Wendle Murphy, prays that this Court:

Case: 1:12-cv-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
7

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

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Murphy, 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

Plaintiff, Wendle Murphy, demands trial by jury.

Wendle Murphy,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___

One of Plaintiff's Attorneys

Dated: April 23, 2012

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-03007 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7