IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AARON FRANKLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

MRC RECEIVABLES CORPORATION, and )

WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., L.P.A., )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Aaron Franklin brings this action to secure redress from unlawful

credit and collection practices engaged in by defendants MRC Receivables Corporation (“MRC”)

and Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (“WWR”). Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

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

§1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1337.

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

a. A substantial portion of the events at issue occurred within this

District;

b. Defendant does or transacts business within this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Aaron Franklin is an individual who resides in Arizona. At one time

he resided in Illinois.

5. Defendant MRC Receivables Corporation (“MRC”) is a Delaware 

corporation. Its principal place of business is 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 1300, San Diego,

California 92108. Its address for service of process is Illinois Corporation Service Co., 801 Adlai

1

Case: 1:12-cv-04854 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1
Stevenson Drive, Springfield, IL 62703.

6. Defendant MRC is engaged in the collection of consumer debts originally

owed to others, using the mails and telephone for that purpose.

7. MRC is a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA. 

8. Defendant WWR is a law firm organized as a corporation under Ohio law.

It has offices at 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois 60601. Its registered agent and

office is National Registered Agents, Inc., 200 W. Adams St., Chicago, IL 60606.

9. Defendant WWR is in the business of attempting to collect alleged delinquent

consumer debts owed to others, and uses the mails and telephone system for that purpose.

10. Defendant WWR is a “debt collector” as defined in the FDCPA. 

FACTS

11. In 2006, a collection lawsuit was filed in the name of MRC against Aaron 

Franklin in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case number 06 M1 176170.

12. The attorney for the plaintiff was WWR.

13. The lawsuit sought to collect an alleged credit card debt involving an account

number ending in 7332. (Exhibit A)

14. Any such debt would have been incurred for personal, family or household

purposes and not for business purposes.

15. MRC claimed that substitute service of process was made on Mr. Franklin on

March 9, 2007. In fact, plaintiff never resided at the claimed service address and had moved to

Arizona prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

16. WWR, on behalf of MRC, obtained a default judgment in the amount of 

$1,173.62 against Mr. Franklin based on such purported service of process.

17. Mr. Franklin learned of the judgment when he obtained a copy of his credit

report.

18. Mr. Franklin was forced to retain counsel in Illinois to move to quash service

2

Case: 1:12-cv-04854 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2
and vacate the judgment, which was done by order of September 7, 2011 (Exhibit B). 

19. There has been no further activity in the lawsuit since September 7, 2011. 

It

is still pending. (Exhibit C) 

20. On or about May 3, 2012, WWR, on behalf of MRC sent a dunning letter 

directly to plaintiff to collect the same 7332 account. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit D.

21. On information and belief, MRC and WWR, were aware that Mr. Franklin

was represented.

22. Plaintiff was aggravated that MRC and WWR were communicating with him

directly.

COUNT I – FDCPA

23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-22.

24. Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c by contacting a represented party

directly.

25. Section 1692c provides:

§ 1692c. Communication in connection with debt collection 

(a) Communication with the consumer generally. Without the prior consent of

the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of

a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with

a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt–

. . . (2) 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, unless the attorney fails to

respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the

debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication

with the consumer; . . . 

WHEREFORE, the Court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against

defendants for:

(1) Statutory damages;

3

Case: 1:12-cv-04854 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:3
(2) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;

(3) 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)

4

Case: 1:12-cv-04854 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:4
NOTICE OF LIEN AND ASSIGNMENT

Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such

amount as a court awards. 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)

5

Case: 1:12-cv-04854 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:5