IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NICHOLAS MARTIN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 12-cv-5147 

 ) 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON ) Judge Ronald Guzman 

WIRELESS, VANTAGE SOURCING, LLC, ) 

MIRACLE FINANCIAL, INC., and CREDIT ) 

BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC. d/b/a ) 

CHASE RECEIVABLES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

AND CROSS-CLAIMS

Defendant, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), by its 

attorneys Hal R. Morris and Elizabeth A. Thompson (Arnstein & Lehr, of counsel), states 

as follows for its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Cross-Claims: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Nicholas Martin, proceeding pro se, brings this action to secure 

redress against defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227 et seq. ("TCPA") and implementing regulations and orders, and the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff also 

requests that this court issued a declaratory judgment. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Plaintiff is pro se and that he has brought 

claims for alleged violations of the TCPA and FDCPA. Verizon denies that it violated 

the TCPA and denies the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. 

2. Plaintiff alleges that a wireless phone carrier attempted to charge plaintiff 

fees that were not contemplated by way of agreement or contract. The wireless phone 

carrier then hired debt collectors who violated laws in their attempts to collect a debt 

that wasn't actually due and owing. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:163
2 

ANSWER: Verizon denies that it attempted to charge plaintiff fees that were 

not contemplated by way of agreement or contract. Verizon admits that it hired debt 

collectors to collect a debt, but denies that the debt was not due and owing. Verizon 

denies that it hired debt collectors who violated the law. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s FDCPA and 

TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This court has supplemental jurisdiction 

over plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over 

plaintiff’s alleged FDCPA and TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further 

answering, Verizon states that plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim has been 

dismissed. 

4. Venue is proper in this District because the wrongful acts engaged in by 

defendants occurred in this District. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that venue is proper in the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division but denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is an individual that resides in the Northern District of Illinois. 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone phone number is 630-xxx-3271. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

6. Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") is a 

general partnership organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. It is comprised 

of two partners: Verizon Communications Inc. and Vodafone Group PLC. Verizon 

provides wireless communication services to businesses and consumers. Verizon's 

headquarters are in Bedminster, New Jersey. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:164
3 

ANSWER: Verizon admits the allegations in this paragraph. 

7. Defendant Vantage Sourcing, LLC ("Vantage Sourcing") is a debt collector 

as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). It has offices in Dothan, Alabama. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

8. Defendant Miracle Financial, Inc. ("Miracle Financial") is a debt collector 

as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). It has offices in Plymouth, 

Massachusetts. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. Further answering, Miracle Financial, 

Inc. is no longer a defendant in this case by way of plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of 

Miracle Financial on July 20, 2012. 

9. Defendant Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. D/B/A Chase Receivables 

("Chase Receivables") is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6). It has offices in Sonoma, California. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. On February 12, 2011, plaintiff entered into an agreement with Verizon to 

provide wireless service for his own personal use. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that plaintiff entered into an agreement with it for 

Verizon to provide wireless services to plaintiff. Verizon denies that this agreement was 

entered on February 12, 2011. Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief 

as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:165
4 

11. According to the terms of the agreement between plaintiff and Verizon, 

plaintiff was entitled to cancel the entire agreement within 30 days of activating service: 

You can cancel (if you're a new customer and not assuming another customer's service) 

WITHIN 30 DAYS of accepting. You'll still be responsible through that date for the new 

service and any charges associated with it. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations of this paragraph. 

12. Unsatisfied with the service provided by Verizon, plaintiff canceled his 

cellular service on March 8, 2011, by porting his phone number to another wireless 

carrier. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that plaintiff canceled his cellular service with 

Verizon on March 8, 2011. Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

13. On March 9, 2011, plaintiff mailed a letter to Verizon confirming that he 

had canceled his service along with the final payment on the account. Exhibit A

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit A to the Complaint is a letter from 

plaintiff to Verizon confirming that he canceled his service. Verizon denies that the 

enclosed check was in full and final payment of the debt owed to Verizon. Verizon is 

without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

14. According to the United States Postal Service, Verizon received plaintiff’s 

letter on March 11, 2011. Exhibit B

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit B to the Complaint is a United States 

Postal Service receipt. Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

15. Plaintiff enclosed a detailed itemization of the charges he was responsible 

for under the agreement. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:166
5 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit A contains an itemization of the charges 

he believed he was responsible for under the agreement. Verizon denies that this 

computation was correct or pursuant to the parties’ agreement and therefore denies the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

16. Verizon deposited plaintiff’s final payment check and the funds cleared 

plaintiff’s checking account. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that it deposited plaintiff’s check and that the funds 

cleared plaintiff’s checking account. Verizon denies that the check was in full and final 

satisfaction of the debt owed to Verizon. 

17. In light of the above facts, plaintiff thus canceled the entire agreement with 

Verizon. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent that an 

answer is required, Verizon admits that plaintiff canceled his agreement with Verizon. 

18. In the March 9, 2011, letter, plaintiff also expressly revoked any consent 

he might have provided to Verizon to call his cell phone number: 

Please remove my cell phone number, 630-xxx-3271, from 

your database as I do not wish to receive phone calls 

regarding this account. Please direct all future 

correspondence to the post office box address I have listed 

atop this letter. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit A to the Complaint contains the above 

quoted language. Verizon denies that plaintiff revoked any consent to call his cellular 

telephone number regarding his Verizon account. Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:167
6 

19. Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff fulfilled the terms of the agreement, 

Verizon sent an invoice to plaintiff dated March 16, 2011, which attempted to charge 

plaintiff an "early termination fee" in the amount of $340, a "restocking fee adjustment" 

in the amount of $35, and various taxes computed based on the assessment of these 

additional charges. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that it sent an invoice to plaintiff dated March 16, 

2011 in an attempt to collect fees due and owing to it. Verizon denies the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

20. Plaintiff and Verizon never agreed to the assessment of such fees. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

VERIZON PLACES THE ACCOUNT WITH VANTAGE SOURCING

21. Verizon assigned the alleged debt for collection with Vantage Sourcing in 

or about March or April 2011. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits the allegations in this paragraph. 

22. Any such debt that Vantage Sourcing would have been attempting to 

collect would have been incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

23. Vantage Sourcing uses one or more "predictive dialers" as that term is 

defined by the Federal Communications Commission. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

24. Vantage Sourcing's predictive dialer has the capacity to dial phone 

numbers without human intervention. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:168
7 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

25. Vantage Sourcing's predictive dialer has the ability to play a message that 

has been recorded ahead of time during a connected phone call. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

26. Vantage Sourcing's predictive dialer is an "automatic telephone dialing 

system" as that term is defined by the TCPA and the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

27. In April 2011, Vantage Sourcing began placing calls to plaintiff’s cell 

phone. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

28. 28. Vantage Sourcing placed telephone calls to plaintiff’s cell phone 

number 630-xxx-3271 on at least the following occasions (all times are in C.S.T.): 

a. 04/21/2011 17:46 

b. 04/23/2011 20:48 

c. 04/27/2011 12:50 

d. 04/29/2011 11:19 

e. 05/03/2011 15:45 

f. 05/05/2011 16:15 

g. 05/07/2011 15:34 

h. 05/10/2011 14:12 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:169
8 

i. 05/12/2011 14:15 

j. 05/14/2011 17:17 

k. 05/17/2011 18:29 

l. 06/03/2011 11:11 

m. 06/06/2011 11:56 

n. 06/06/2011 18:14 

o. 06/08/2011 15:51 

p. 06/10/2011 12:06 

q. 06/13/2011 16:05 

r. 06/15/2011 13:46 

s. 06/17/2011 14:13 

t. 06/17/2011 16:19 

u. 06/21/2011 11:02 

v. 06/23/2011 10:14 

w. 06/28/2011 11:01 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

29. The above list of calls Vantage Sourcing placed to plaintiff is not inclusive. 

There may be other calls that will be ascertained through discovery. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

30. On information and belief, Vantage Sourcing used one of their predictive 

dialers to make each of the phone calls to plaintiff listed above. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:170
9 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

31. A human being did not manually dial the calls that Vantage Sourcing 

placed to plaintiff’s cell phone. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

32. Vantage Sourcing played a message during its phone calls to plaintiff that 

had been recorded ahead of time. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

33. Vantage Sourcing utilized technology which allows for the insertion of 

"artificial voice" in the messages it played during its phone calls to plaintiff. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

34. All of the calls that Vantage Sourcing placed to plaintiff’s cell phone were 

made without plaintiff s consent. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

35. All of the messages played by Vantage Sourcing during their phone calls 

to plaintiff did not properly identify the caller's identity. This was the case on the June 

28, 2011 phone call. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

36. All of the messages played by Vantage Sourcing during their phone calls 

to plaintiff failed to disclose that the communication was from a debt collector. This was 

the case on the June 28, 2011 phone call. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:171
10 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

37. Vantage Sourcing mailed a letter dated May 16, 2011, to plaintiff which 

attempted to collect an alleged debt owed to Verizon in the amount of $457.73. Plaintiff 

received this letter on May 19, 2011. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

38. Plaintiff disputed the alleged debt via a letter sent to Vantage Sourcing on 

June 10, 2011. Exhibit C

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit C to the Complaint purports to be a 

letter sent to Vantage Sourcing disputing the debt. Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

39. According to the United States Postal Service, Vantage Sourcing received 

this letter on June 13, 2011. Exhibit D

ANSWER: Verizon admits that Exhibit D to the Complaint purports to be a 

United States Postal Service’s receipt. Verizon is without sufficient information to form 

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

40. In the letter, plaintiff stated: 

I am in receipt of your collection notice dated May 16, 2011. I 

dispute the validity of the alleged debt. Please state with 

specificity how you arrived at the amount you claim l owe. If 

you contend that l owe money for an early termination fee, 

please provide a copy of the agreement that I entered into 

that provides for such a fee. Please direct all future 

correspondence to the address listed atop this letter. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:172
11 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that this paragraph accurately quotes the language 

of the purported letter attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint. Verizon is without 

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

in this paragraph. 

41. Notwithstanding the fact that Vantage Sourcing was in receipt of plaintiff’s 

debt dispute and had not yet provided validation of the alleged debt, Vantage Sourcing 

continued to place collection calls to plaintiff’s cell phone as specified in calls q-w 

specified in paragraph 28 of this complaint. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

42. Vantage Sourcing sent a letter to plaintiff dated June 28, 2011. The letter's 

postmark indicated a date of June 29, 2011. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

43. Plaintiff received this letter on July 2, 2011. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

44. The June 28, 2011, letter stated, among other things: 

Our offices are in receipt of your letter of dispute and request 

for verification pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act. Please be advised we have 

contacted our client, Verizon Wireless, who has investigated 

your claim and credits have been applied to your account. 

The corrected balance is listed below. In addition, please 

find further proof of the debt attached. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:173
12 

45. Vantage Sourcing stated that the new debt amount was $59.93. The letter 

does not state how the alleged debt was reduced from $457.73 to $59.93. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

46. Enclosed with the letter were two account statements from Verizon dated 

March 16, 2011 and February 16, 2011. Vantage Sourcing highlighted in yellow certain 

figures from the statements but those figures do not add up to $59.93. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

47. Plaintiff was confused as to Vantage Sourcing's explanation of the new 

alleged debt amount. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

VERIZON PLACES THE ACCOUNT WITH MIRACLE FINANCIAL

48. Verizon assigned the alleged debt for collection with Miracle Financial in 

or about July 2011. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon admits the allegations 

in this paragraph. 

49. Any such debt that Miracle Financial would have been attempting to 

collect would have been incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this paragraph states a legal 

conclusion. To the extent an answer is required, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:174
13 

50. Miracle Financial sent a letter dated July 28, 2011, to plaintiff to collect an 

alleged debt owed to Verizon in the amount of $73.11. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

51. Plaintiff received this letter on August 4, 2011. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

52. In the letter, Miracle Financial claims that there is a principal balance due 

of $59.93 and "VZW collection fees" due in the amount of $13.18. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

53. Such a fee equals approximately 22 percent of the alleged principal 

balance due. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon admits that plaintiff 

has accurately calculated the ratio of principal to collection fees alleged in paragraph 

52. Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of 

the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

54. Miracle Financial was not entitled or authorized to charge or attempt to 

collect such a fee. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:175
14 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this paragraph states a legal 

conclusion. To the extent an answer is required, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

55. Plaintiff sent a letter of dispute to Miracle Financial on August 18, 2011. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

56. Plaintiff did not receive a letter from Miracle Financial which validated the 

debt. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

57. Upon information and belief, Miracle Financial did not send a validation 

letter to plaintiff. 

ANSWER: On July 20, 2012, Defendant Miracle Financial was voluntarily 

dismissed from this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Verizon is without sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

VERIZON PLACES THE ACCOUNT WITH CHASE RECEIVABLES

58. Verizon assigned the alleged debt for collection with Chase Receivables in 

or about January or February 2012. 

ANSWER: Verizon admits the allegations in this paragraph. 

59. Any such debt that Chase Receivables would have been attempting to 

collect would have been incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:176
15 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent that an 

answer is required, Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

60. Chase Receivables uses one or more "predictive dialers" as that term is 

defined by the Federal Communications Commission. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or 

falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

61. Chase Receivable's predictive dialer has the capacity to dial phone 

numbers without human intervention. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

62. Chase Receivable's predictive dialer has the ability to play a message that 

has been recorded ahead of time during a connected phone call. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

63. Vantage Sourcing's predictive dialer is an "automatic telephone dialing 

system" as that term is defined by the TCPA and the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

64. Chase Receivables placed telephone calls to plaintiffs cell phone number 

630-xxx-3271 on at least the following occasions (all times are in C.S.T.): 

a. 02/02/2012 11:40 

b. 02/03/2012 08:22 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:177
16 

c. 02/04/2012 10:19 

d. 02/06/2012 08:32 

e. 02/07/2012 19:22 

f. 02/09/2012 10:27 

g. 02/10/2012 17:38 

h. 02/11/2012 11:19 

i. 02/14/2012 10:13 

j. 02/15/2012 08:11 

k. 02/16/2012 10:59 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

65. The above list of calls that Chase Receivables placed to plaintiff is not 

inclusive. There may be other calls that will be ascertained through discovery. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

66. On information and belief, Chase Receivables used one of their predictive 

dialers to make each of the phone calls to plaintiff listed above. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

67. A human being did not manually dial the calls that were placed to plaintiffs 

cell phone listed above. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:178
17 

68. Chase Receivables played a message during its phone calls to plaintiff 

that had been recorded ahead of time. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

69. Chase Receivables utilized technology which allows for the insertion of 

"artificial voice" in the messages it played during its phone calls to plaintiff. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

70. All of the calls that Chase Receivables placed to plaintiff’s cell phone were 

made without plaintiff’s consent. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

71. All of the messages played by Chase Receivables during their phone calls 

to plaintiff did not identify the caller's identity. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

72. Plaintiff did not receive a notice from Chase Receivables which explained 

the amount of the debt and the creditor to which the alleged debt was owed. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

73. Upon information and belief, Chase Receivables never sent a notice to 

plaintiff which explained the amount of the debt and the creditor to which the alleged 

debt was owed. 

ANSWER: Verizon is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 

truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:179
18 

COUNT I - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST VANTAGE

SOURCING)

Count I is not directed to Verizon, therefore requires no answer. 

COUNT II - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST VANTAGE

SOURCING)

Count II is not directed to Verizon, therefore requires no answer. 

COUNT III - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST VANTAGE

SOURCING)

Count III is not directed to Verizon, therefore requires no answer. 

COUNT IV - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST MIRACLE

FINANCIAL)

Count IV is not directed to Verizon, therefore requires no answer. 

COUNT V - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (AGAINST CHASE

RECEIVABLES)

Count V is not directed to Verizon, therefore requires no answer. 

COUNT VI - TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (AGAINST VERIZON

AND VANTAGE SOURCING)

89. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 73 above. 

ANSWER: Verizon incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1-73 above as if 

fully stated here. 

90. The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 provides in pertinent part: 

 (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment. 

(1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the 

United States, or any person outside the United States if the 

recipient is within the United StatesCase: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:180
19 

(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency 

purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called 

party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an 

artificial or prerecorded voice- * * * 

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, 

cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, 

or other radio common carrier service, or any service for 

which the called party is charged for the call; ... 

 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that 47 U.S.C. § 227 is accurately quoted. Verizon 

denies that it violated this section and the remaining allegations in this paragraph.

91. Vantage Sourcing's phone calls to plaintiff’s cell phone violated the TCPA 

because they were made using an automatic telephone dialing system and used both 

an artificial and prerecorded voice. The phone calls to plaintiff’s cell phone were not 

made for emergency purposes and they were not made with the prior express consent 

of plaintiff. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

92. Verizon is also liable for the calls that Vantage Sourcing placed on its 

behalf which violate the TCPA. "Calls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that 

creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of1991, GC Doc. 02 - 278, 23 

FCC Rcd. 559 (January 4, 2008). 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

93. Upon information and belief, Verizon was aware that Vantage Sourcing 

would utilize predictive dialers and artificial and prerecorded voice when placing phone 

calls to collect debts allegedly owed to Verizon. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

94. The defendants' calls were negligent, or alternatively, they were willful. 47 

U.S.C. §312(f)(1). 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:181
20 

ANSWER: This paragraph is a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer is 

required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

95. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendants' phone calls. He was 

needlessly bothered and was forced to utilize minutes from his cell phone plan's allotted 

minutes which could have been used for other purposes. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

COUNT VII - TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (AGAINST VERIZON

AND CHASE RECEIVABLES)

96. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 - 73 above. 

ANSWER: Verizon incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1-73 above as if 

fully stated here. 

97. The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 provides in pertinent part: 

(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment. 

(1) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person within the 

United States, or any person outside the United States if the 

recipient is within the United States- 

(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency 

purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called 

party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an 

artificial or prerecorded voice- * * * 

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, 

cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, 

or other radio common carrier service, or any service for 

which the called party is charged for the call; ... 

ANSWER: Verizon admits that 47 U.S.C. § 227 is accurately quoted. Verizon 

denies that it violated this section and the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

98. Chase Receivable's phone calls to plaintiff’s cell phone violated the TCPA 

because they were made using an automatic telephone dialing system and used both 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:182
21 

an artificial and prerecorded voice. The phone calls to plaintiff’s cell phone were not 

made for emergency purposes and they were not made with the prior express consent 

of plaintiff. 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

99. Verizon is also liable for the calls that Chase Receivables placed on its 

behalf which violate the TCPA. "Calls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that 

creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, GC Doc. 02 - 278, 23 

FCC Red. 559 (January 4, 2008). 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

100. Upon information and belief, Verizon was aware that Chase Receivables 

would utilize predictive dialers and artificial and prerecorded voice when placing phone 

calls to collect debts allegedly owed to Verizon. 

ANSWER: Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

101. The defendants' calls were negligent, or alternatively, they were willful. 47 

U.S.C. §312(f)(1). 

ANSWER: This paragraph states a legal conclusion. To the extent an answer 

is required, Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

102. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of defendants' phone calls. He was 

needlessly bothered and was forced to utilize minutes from his cell phone plan's allotted 

minutes which could have been used for other purposes. 

103. Verizon denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

COUNT VIII - DECLARATORY ACTION (AGAINST VERIZON)

This Court has dismissed Count VIII of Martin’s Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless respectfully 

requests that this Court deny Plaintiff the relief requested, dismiss Counts VI and VII of 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:183
22 

Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, tax all costs to Plaintiff, and grant such other relief 

as the Court deems fair and just. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 Defendant, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), by its 

attorneys Hal R. Morris and Elizabeth A. Thompson (Arnstein & Lehr, of counsel), states 

as follows for its affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint: 

First Affirmative Defense: Prior Express Consent

1. Counts VI and VII are barred because Plaintiff expressly consented to be 

contacted at his cellular telephone number pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). 

Second Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands/Lack of Good Faith

1. Counts VI and VII are barred by Plaintiff’s unclean hands and bad faith 

conduct. 

2. Plaintiff has filed approximately thirty-one similar FDCPA and TCPA lawsuits 

against various other entities. 

3. Many of Plaintiff’s other cases allege facts strikingly similar to those alleged 

by Plaintiff in this case: Plaintiff purchased some type of service, Plaintiff terminated his 

service before the parties’ contract ended, the defendant attempted to collect monies 

due and owing, Plaintiff sued the defendant for its collection attempts. See, e.g., Martin 

v. Sullivan, Dupre & Aldous, LLC, et al., 11-cv-859 (plaintiff purchased one-year gym 

membership in May 2010, canceled in July 2010 and sued various entities for their 

collection attempts).1

 

1 See also Martin v. Redline Recovery Services, 08-cv-6153; Martin v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., 

08-cv-6181; Martin v. Valentine & Kebartas, Inc., 08-cv-06640; Martin v. Vengroff Williams & Assoc., 

Inc., 09-cv-00592; Martin v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 09-cv-05343; Martin v. J.C. Christensen & Assoc., 

Inc., 09-cv-05726; Martin v. Richard J. Boudreau & Assoc., LLC, 09-cv-5746; Martin v. Fosco Fullett 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:184
23 

4. In this case, Plaintiff purchased service with Verizon and cancelled that 

service only twenty days later. 

5. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff entered into his contract with Verizon for 

the sole purpose of canceling it, paying less than what was owed, and inducing Verizon 

and the other Defendants into the alleged violations of the FDCPA and TCPA. 

6. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff never intended to honor the full term of 

his contract with Verizon. Plaintiff entered into this contract for the express purpose of 

creating a statutory windfall of damages. 

7. Plaintiff now demands $51,000 from Verizon for Vantage and Chase’s 

attempts to collect a minor but legally owing debt. 

8. In light of Plaintiff’s bad faith and unclean hands of inducing TCPA violations 

and then suing for them, he should not be permitted to recover statutory damages. 

Third Affirmative Defense: Fraud

1. Counts VI and VII are barred by Plaintiff’s fraud in inducing Verizon to enter 

into a contract with Plaintiff for which Plaintiff was not eligible. 

2. Plaintiff purchased his cellular device and service from Verizon by way of the 

State of Illinois and Local Government Employee website, located at 

https://www.vzwshop.com/b2e/url/kUgkCGLvqnl=?CMP+EMC-WLS-B-S-DIR-1. 

 Roselund, 09-cv-06236; Martin v. West Asset Mgmt, Inc., 09-cv-08067; Martin v. PPP, Inc., 10-cv00140; O’Brien, et al. v. Panino’s, Inc., 10-cv-02991; Martin v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 10-cv-03300; Martin 

v. CCH Inc., 10-cv-03494; Diparvine, et al. v. Ripple 1471 Inc., 10-cv-05114; Martin v. Piknick Kafe, 

Inc., 10-cv-05142; Martin v. Ripple 1471 Inc., 10-cv-5144; Martin v. Michael Ramierez, 10-cv-05242; 

Vance, et al. v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, LLC, 10-cv-6324; Martin v. Bureau of Collection 

Recovery, LLC, 10-cv-07725; Martin v. Fail Safe Taxes, LLC, 11-cv-00155; Martin v. Automated Fin., 

LLC, 11-cv-00525; Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, 11-cv-03104; Martin v. Leading Edge Recovery 

Solutions, LLC, 11-cv-05886; Martin v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., 11-cv-06256; Martin v. Credit 

Protection Ass’n, LP, 11-cv-06828; Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 12-cv-00215; Martin v. Duncan, 12-

cv-03881; Martin v. Tax Works, Inc., 12-cv-05485; Martin v. Miracle Fin., Inc., 12-cv-6001; Martin v. 

Comcast Corp., 12-cv-06421. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:185
24 

3. The State of Illinois and Local Government Employee website allows 

government employees to receive a discount off certain products and cellular service 

from Verizon (the “government discount”). Its use is limited to employees of the 

government. 

4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is not an employee entitled to receive 

the government discount. 

5. By claiming that he was entitled to the government discount, Plaintiff stated a 

material misrepresentation regarding his eligibility for reduced service charges from 

Verizon. 

6. Thereafter, upon information and belief, Plaintiff canceled his contract with 

Verizon for the express purpose of creating a debt he would not pay. By doing so, 

Plaintiff hoped to induce Verizon to violate the TCPA. 

7. Plaintiff should not be permitted to recover under the TCPA for violations that 

occurred by way of his own fraud in inducing Verizon to enter into a contract with him for 

which he was not eligible. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense: Failure to Mitigate Damages

1. Counts VI and VII are barred by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. 

2. Plaintiff allowed his cellular phone to be called at least thirty-four times by 

Vantage and Chase, meticulously detailing each call. 

3. Plaintiff could have taken affirmative steps to mitigate his damages by 

answering the phone calls earlier and requesting that the caller cease calling his 

number. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:186
25 

4. Upon information and belief, instead of mitigating damages, Plaintiff 

purposefully induced further phone calls in an attempt to be entitled to a larger damages 

award. 

Fifth Affirmative Defense: Breach of Contract

1. Counts VI and VII are barred by Plaintiff’s breach of the parties’ contract. 

2. Verizon’s Terms and Conditions, which were accepted by Plaintiff, state “If 

you’re a Postpay customer, you can dispute your bill within 180 days of receiving it, but 

unless otherwise provided by law or unless you’re disputing charges because your 

wireless device was lost or stolen, you still have to pay all charges until the dispute is 

resolved.” 

3. Plaintiff was a Postpay customer. 

4. Plaintiff’s wireless device was not lost or stolen. 

5. Plaintiff’s contract with Verizon required him to pay any disputed charges 

until the dispute is resolved. However, Plaintiff did not pay the disputed charges. 

6. By not paying the disputed charges, Plaintiff breached his contract with 

Verizon. 

7. If Plaintiff had paid the disputed charges consistent with his contractual 

obligations, Vantage and Chase would not have taken actions to attempt to collect the 

debt. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense: Arbitration

1. Counts VI and VII are barred by the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. 

2. That contract states: 

YOU AND VERIZON BOTH AGREE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES 

ONLY BY ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:187
26 

THERE’S NO JUDGE OR JURY IN ARBITRATION, AND THE 

PROCEDURES MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT AN ARBITRATOR 

CAN AWARD THE SAME DAMAGES AND RELIEF, AND MUST 

HONOR THE SAME TERMS IN THIS AGREEMENT, AS A 

COURT WOULD. IF THE LAW ALLOWS FOR AN AWARD OF 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AN ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD THEM 

TOO. WE ALSO BOTH AGREE THAT: 

(1) THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT APPLIES TO 

THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS 

COURT CASES THAT QUALIFY, ANY DISPUTE 

THAT RESULTS FROM THIS AGREEMENT OR 

FROM THE SERVICES YOU RECEIVE FROM US (OR 

FROM ANY ADVERTISING FOR ANY PRODUCTS OR 

SERVICES) WILL BE RESOLVED BY ONE OR MORE 

NEUTRAL ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN 

ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”) OR BETTER 

BUSINESS BUREAU (“BBB”).... 

3. Plaintiff violated the arbitration agreement by bringing his claims against 

Verizon in federal court. 

4. Plaintiff’s suit is one that results from the parties’ agreement and/or the 

services he received from Verizon. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration and cannot be heard by 

this Court. 

CROSS-PLAINTIFF’S CROSS CLAIMS AGAINST VANTAGE SOURCING, LLC AND 

CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC. D/B/A CHASE RECEIVABLES

 Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), 

by its attorneys Hal R. Morris and Elizabeth A. Thompson (Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, of 

counsel), for its cross claims against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Vantage Sourcing, 

LLC (“Vantage”) and Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. d/b/a Chase Receivables 

(“Chase”), states as follows: 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:188
27 

COUNT I: Declaratory Judgment against Vantage Sourcing, LLC

1. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff Nicholas Martin brought suit against Verizon, 

Vantage and Chase for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 

47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (the “TCPA”), based upon calls made by Vantage and Chase in 

an attempt to collect a debt from Plaintiff. Vantage and Chase are required, under 

contractual indemnity provisions, to provide defense costs and to indemnify Verizon for 

Plaintiff’s claims. 

PARTIES

2. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is a Delaware general partnership 

with its principal place of business in Bedminster, New Jersey. 

3. Vantage Sourcing, LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Dothan, Alabama. 

4. Chase is a California corporation with its principal place of business in 

Sonoma, California. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction over Verizon’s claims for declaratory judgment is proper pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff purchased cellular telephone service from Verizon Wireless in 

February of 2011. 

8. At the time Plaintiff purchased such service, Verizon’s terms and conditions 

provided that its customers could cancel their contract within fourteen days of accepting 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:189
28 

service without incurring an early termination fee. Specifically, that agreement provides: 

“you can cancel a line of service within 14 days of accepting without having to pay an 

early termination fee as long as you return any equipment you purchased at the time 

you accepted, but you’ll still have to pay for your Service through that date.” 

9. Plaintiff activated his cellular service with Verizon on February 16, 2011. 

10. Plaintiff unilaterally canceled his cellular service with Verizon on March 8, 

2011, twenty days later. This cancelation was not within the fourteen day grace period. 

11. Accordingly, Verizon assessed certain fees, including an early termination 

fee, to Plaintiff with regard to his termination of the contract. 

12. Verizon sent an invoice to Plaintiff on March 16, 2011 reflecting the fees 

owed. 

13. Plaintiff failed to pay the March 16, 2011 invoice. 

14. Verizon assigned Plaintiff’s debt to be collected first by Vantage and then by 

Chase. The collection of this debt by Vantage and Chase was governed by contracts 

that Verizon had with each party. These contracts both contain indemnification 

provisions. 

15. Vantage and Chase then allegedly used predictive dialers to call Plaintiff 

multiple times to collect Verizon’s debt. 

16. As a result of Vantage and Chase’s phone calls, Plaintiff brought suit against 

Verizon under the TCPA. 

17. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $1,500 per call from Verizon. 

Verizon denies that it violated the TCPA. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:190
29 

18. Verizon’s relationship with Vantage is governed by a Master Agreement and 

an amendment thereto. 

19. Verizon and Vantage entered into the Master Agreement on or about March 

27, 2006. 

20. The Master Agreement states, in part: 

Company shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Verizon Wireless, 

its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, and its and their respective 

directors, officers, partners, employees, agents, successors and 

assigns (“Indemnified Parties”) from any claims, demands, lawsuits, 

damages, liabilities, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable 

fees and disbursements of counsel and court costs), judgments, 

settlements and penalties of every kind (“Claims”), that may be made: 

... (c) by anyone in connection with or based upon Services (including 

products furnished hereunder) provided by Company and its 

subcontractors, if any, or contemplated by this Agreement, including 

Claims regarding the adequacy of any disclosures, instructions or 

warnings related to any such Services; and (d) under any federal 

securities laws or under any other statute, at common law or otherwise 

arising out of or in connection with the performance by Company 

contemplated by this Agreement or any information obtained in 

connection with such performance. The foregoing indemnification shall 

apply whether Company or an Indemnified Party defends such Claim 

and whether the Claim arises or is alleged to arise out of the sole acts 

or omissions of the Company (and/or any subcontractor of Company) or 

out of the concurrent acts or omissions of Company (and/or any 

subcontractor of Company) and any Indemnified Parties. Company 

further agrees to bind its subcontractors, if any, to similarly indemnify, 

hold harmless, and defend the Indemnified Parties. 

21. The Master Agreement defines “Company” as “Vantage Sourcing, LLC.” 

22. Vantage and Verizon are also parties to “Amendment Number 1” to the 

Master Agreement, which replaces and changes certain provisions of the Master 

Agreement. 

23. That Amendment further states: 

Supplier and all approved subcontractors shall comply with the 

provisions of all applicable federal, state, county and local laws, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:191
30 

ordinances, regulations, rules, codes and orders (collectively “law”) in 

performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to any laws 

pertaining to employment of labor, hours of labor, health and safety, 

payment of wages, payment of taxes, employment eligibility status and 

verification (I-9), and the safeguarding, protection, and disposal of 

personal or similar information used, maintained, and/or accessed on 

Verizon’s behalf... Supplier and any approved subcontractor shall 

indemnify and hold Verizon harmless against all Claims (as defined in 

Section 22, Indemnification) arising out of or related to such 

noncompliance. 

24. Amendment Number 1 to the Master Agreement defines “Supplier” as 

“Vantage Sourcing, LLC.” 

25. On August 29, 2012, Verizon’s claims manager requested that Vantage’s 

insurance provider, Argonaut Great Central, defend Verizon, pay Verizon’s defense 

costs and indemnify Verizon for Plaintiff’s suit. A copy of the August 29, 2012 letter is 

attached as Exhibit A. 

26. Verizon never received a response to the August 29, 2012 letter. 

27. On October 12, 2012, Verizon sent a second letter to Vantage, again 

requesting that Vantage honor the parties’ agreement by defending Verizon, paying 

Verizon’s defense costs and indemnifying Verizon. A copy of the October 12, 2012 

letter is attached as Exhibit B. 

28. Verizon never received a response to the October 12, 2012 letter. 

29. Under the Master Agreement and Amendment Number 1, Vantage is 

required to defend Verizon, pay Verizon’s defense costs, as well as indemnify and hold 

Verizon harmless for Plaintiff’s claims. 

30. Vantage has failed to provide a defense for Verizon, to pay Verizon’s 

attorneys’ fees, or to promise to indemnify Verizon if Verizon is found liable in this 

lawsuit. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:192
31 

31. Verizon has complied with its obligations under the Master Agreement and 

Amendment Number 1. 

32. There exists an actual controversy between Verizon and Vantage regarding 

Vantage’s obligations under the Master Agreement and Amendment Number 1. 

WHEREFORE, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless requests that this 

Court enter judgment in favor of Verizon declaring that Vantage Sourcing LLC is 

required to defend Verizon in this matter; declaring that Vantage must pay Verizon’s 

attorneys’ fees in this matter, including the fees it has incurred and will incur in 

defending Plaintiff’s claims and in prosecuting Verizon’s cross-claim against Vantage; 

declaring that Vantage is required to indemnify Verizon for any award Plaintiff receives 

in his action against Verizon; and for any further relief this Court deems equitable and 

just. 

COUNT II: Declaratory Judgment against Credit Bureau of

Napa Valley d/b/a Chase Receivables

1. Verizon incorporates paragraph 1-17 of Count I above. 

2. Verizon’s relationship with Chase is governed by an Agreement for Collection 

Services. 

3. Verizon and Chase entered into the Agreement for Collection Services on or 

about September 1, 2007. 

4. The Agreement for Collection Services states, in part: 

Supplier shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Verizon, its parents, 

subsidiaries and Affiliates, and its and their respective directors, 

officers, partners, employees, agents, successors and assigns 

(“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any claims, demands, lawsuits, 

damages, liabilities, loss, costs or expenses (including, but not limited 

to, reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel and court costs), 

judgments, settlements and penalties of every kind (“Claims”), that may 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:193
32 

be made:... (iii) by anyone in connection with or based upon Services 

provided by Supplier and its subcontractors, if any, or contemplated by 

this Agreement, including Claims regarding the adequacy of any 

disclosures related to any such Services; and (iv) under any federal 

securities laws or under any other statute, at common law or otherwise 

arising out of or in connection with the performance of Services by 

Supplier contemplated by this Agreement or any information obtained in 

connection with such performance of Services. The foregoing 

indemnification shall apply whether the Claim arises or is alleged to 

arise out of the sole acts or omissions of the Supplier (and/or any 

subcontractor of Supplier) or out of the concurrent acts or omissions of 

Supplier (and/or any subcontractor of Supplier) and any Indemnified 

Parties. Supplier further agrees to bind its subcontractors, if any, to 

similarly indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Indemnified Parties. 

5. The Agreement for Collection Services defines “Supplier” as “Credit Bureau 

of Napa County Incorporated, d/b/a Chase Receivables.” 

6. That Agreement for Collection Services further states: 

Supplier and any subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of all 

applicable federal, state, county and local laws, ordinances, regulations, 

rules, codes and orders (collectively “law”) in performance of this 

Agreement. Such law shall include, but not be limited to: laws 

pertaining to employment of labor, hours of labor, health and safety, 

and payment of wages; payment of taxes; the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act; the Fair Credit Reporting Act; the Electronic Fund 

Transfers Act; state and local laws regarding the collection of debt or 

reporting of same; the NACHA Operating Rules, any operating rules of 

any credit card association; the Payment Card Industry (PCI) 

Compliance Standards, and laws pertaining to the safeguarding, 

protection and disposal of personal or similar information used, 

maintained and/or accessed on Verizon’s behalf, such as California 

Civil Code Section 1798.82 and the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003, P.L. 108-159.... Supplier shall indemnify and 

hold Verizon harmless from all claims, losses, fines or penalties, 

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or related to noncompliance with this paragraph. 

7. On August 29, 2012, Verizon’s claims manager requested that Chase’s 

insurance provider, Hartford Insurance Company, defend Verizon, pay Verizon’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:194
33 

defense costs and indemnify Verizon for Plaintiff’s suit. A copy of the August 29, 2012 

letter is attached as Exhibit C. 

8. Verizon never received a response to the August 29, 2012 letter. 

9. On October 16, 2012, Verizon sent a second letter to Chase, again 

requesting that Chase honor the parties’ agreement by defending Verizon, paying 

Verizon’s defense costs and indemnifying Verizon. A copy of the October 16, 2012 

letter is attached as Exhibit D. 

10. Verizon never received a response to the October 16, 2012 letter. 

11. Under the Agreement for Collection Services, Chase is required to defend 

Verizon in this matter, pay Verizon’s defense costs, as well as indemnify and hold 

Verizon harmless for Plaintiff’s claims. 

12. Chase has failed to provide a defense for Verizon, to pay Verizon’s attorneys’ 

fees, or to promise to indemnify Verizon if Verizon is found liable in this lawsuit. 

13. Verizon has complied with its obligations under the Agreement for Collection 

Services. 

14. There exists an actual controversy between Verizon and Chase regarding 

Chase’s obligations under the Agreement for Collection Services. 

WHEREFORE, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless requests that this 

Court enter judgment in favor of Verizon declaring that Credit Bureau of Napa County 

d/b/a Chase Receivables is required to defend Verizon in this matter; declaring that 

Chase is required to pay Verizon’s reasonable attorneys’ fees in this matter, including 

the fees it has incurred and will incur in defending Plaintiff’s claims and in prosecuting 

Verizon’s cross-claim against Chase; declaring that Chase is required to indemnify 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:195
34 

Verizon for any award Plaintiff receives in his action against Verizon; and for any further 

relief this Court deems equitable and just. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Cellco Partnership 

 By:/s/ Elizabeth A. Thompson

 One of its attorneys 

Hal R. Morris 

Elizabeth A. Thompson 

Arnstein & Lehr, of counsel

120 South Riverside Plaza 

Suite 1200 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 876-7100

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:196
35 

Certificate of Service

 The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that she caused the foregoing Answer to 

Counts VI and VII of Complaint to be served by electronic mail, pursuant to the election 

to receive notice of filings through e-mail, on Nicholas Martin, at 

n.m.martin@hotmail.com, and that she electronically filed the same with the Clerk of 

Court by using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all parties of 

record, on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2012. 

 /s/ Elizabeth A. Thompson

10487842.1 

Case: 1:12-cv-05147 Document #: 35 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:197