THERES

on behalf

PYOD, L

WELTM

REIS CO

DE

D

Answer t

1

and colle

Weinberg

Practices

ANSWE

Act, 15 U

against P

those the

Complain

2

conduct w

SA STUMPF

f of herself a

v

LLC, and

MAN, WEINB

O., LPA, 

EFENDANT

Defendant PY

to Plaintiff T

. Plaint

ection practic

g & Reis Co

s Act, 15 U.S

ER: Defen

U.S.C. §1692

PYOD and W

eories and de

nt. 

. The F

which harass

IN THE U

FOR THE 

F

and a class, 

Plain

vs. 

BERG & 

Defe

T PYOD, LL

YOD, LLC (

Theresa Stum

tiff Theresa S

ces engaged 

o., LPA (“We

S.C. §1692 e

ndant admits

2 et seq. (“FD

Weltman on t

enies that Pla

FDCPA broa

ses, oppresse

UNITED ST

NORTHER

EASTE

ntiff, 

endants. 

LC’S ANSW

CO

(“PYOD” or

mpf’s (“Plain

Stumpf bring

in by defend

eltman”). P

et seq. (“FDC

 Plaintiff all

DCPA”) and

those bases. 

aintiff is enti

dly prohibits

es, or abuses

US_ACTIVE-1

TATES DIS

RN DISTRI

ERN DIVISI

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

12 cv 46

Judge G

Magistr

WER TO PL

OMPLAINT

“Defendant

ntiff”) First A

gs this action

dants PYOD

laintiff alleg

CPA”), and s

eges violatio

d state law a

 Defendant 

itled to any o

s unfair or u

s any debtor

110641079.1-DAMAAS

STRICT CO

ICT OF ILL

ION 

688 

Gettleman 

rate Judge G

LAINTIFF’

t”), by and th

Amended Co

n to secure r

D, LLC (“PY

ges violation

state law. 

on of the Fai

and that Plain

denies Plain

of the relief 

unconscionab

r; and any fal

S 09/25/2012 6:19 PM

OURT 

LINOIS 

Gilbert 

’S FIRST A

hrough its at

omplaint sta

redress from

YOD”) and W

n of the Fair D

ir Debt Colle

ntiff brings t

ntiff states a 

sought in th

ble collection

lse, deceptiv

MUS_ACTIVE-110673

AMENDED 

ttorneys, for 

ates as follow

m unlawful cr

Weltman, 

Debt Collec

ection Practi

this action 

claim under

e First Amen

n methods; 

ve, or mislea

3455.1-DAMAAS 09/25

its 

ws: 

redit 

tion 

ices 

r

nded 

ading 

5/2012

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:99
statemen

debtors c

ANSWE

3

collecting

ANSWE

in its Firs

and denie

4

28 U.S.C

ANSWE

5

ANSWE

Defendan

ANSWE

Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’

nts, in connec

certain inform

ER: Defen

. Specif

g time-barre

ER: Defen

st Amended 

es that Plain

. This C

C. §1337, and

ER: Defen

. Venue

a. 

b. 

ER: Based

nt does not c

6.

ER: Defen

 Defendant 

s residence 

ction with th

mation. 15 U

ndant denies 

fically, plain

ed debts. 

ndant admits

Complaint b

tiff is entitle

V

Court has jur

d 28 U.S.C. 

ndant admits

e and person

Defendant

within this

Each defen

d upon the in

contest venu

Plaintiff is

ndant admits

is without k

at the time o

he collection 

U.S.C. §§169

Plaintiffs’ c

ntiff alleges t

 that Plaintif

but denies th

ed to the relie

VENUE AN

risdiction un

§1367. 

 the allegatio

nal jurisdictio

ts’ collection

s District; an

ndant does b

nformation D

e. 

P

s an individu

 only that its

knowledge or

of this Answ

- 2 -

of a debt; it

92d, 1692e, 

characterizati

that PYOD a

ff includes th

hat Plaintiff s

ef sought in 

ND JURISDI

nder 15 U.S.C

ons in Parag

on in this Di

n communica

nd

business or is

Defendant ha

PARTIES 

ual who resid

s business re

r informatio

wer. 

t also require

1692f and 16

ion of the FD

and Weltma

he allegation

states a claim

the First Am

ICTION 

C. §1692k (F

graph 4. 

istrict are pro

ations and a

s located wit

as as of the d

des in the No

ecords contai

n sufficient 

es debt colle

692g. 

DCPA in Pa

an systematic

ns described 

m based on t

mended Com

FDCPA), 28

oper because

ctivities imp

thin this Dis

date of this A

orthern Distr

in an Illinois

to form a be

ectors to give

aragraph 2. 

cally engage

in Paragrap

these allegat

mplaint. 

8 U.S.C. §13

e: 

pacted plaint

strict. 

Answer, 

rict of Illinoi

s address for

elief as to 

e

ed in 

ph 3 

tions 

331, 

tiff 

is. 

r

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:100
law with 

Its registe

Chicago,

ANSWE

chargedenforcing

ANSWE

consume

collect th

Paragrap

business.

purchase

ANSWE

ANSWE

consume

ANSWE

plaintiff i

7.

offices at 62

ered agent a

, IL 60604. 

ER: Defen

8.

off consume

g those debts

ER: Defen

r debts, inclu

hose debts in

h 8, PYOD 

. Defendant

9.

s. 

ER: Defen

10.

ER: Defen

11.

r debts. 

ER: Defen

in more than

Defendant

25 Pilot Roa

nd office is 

ndant admits

PYOD is e

er debts, incl

s against con

ndant admits

uding auto r

n certain circ

denies that p

 denies any r

PYOD pay

ndant denies 

PYOD reg

ndant admits

PYOD is t

ndant admits

n 100 lawsui

t PYOD is a 

ad, Suite 2, L

CT Corpora

 the allegatio

engaged in th

luding auto r

nsumers. 

 that PYOD 

retail installm

cumstances. 

plaintiff fully

remaining al

ys an averag

the allegatio

gularly uses t

 the allegatio

the plaintiff 

 that, withou

its seeking to

- 3 -

limited liab

Las Vegas, N

ation System

ons in Parag

he business 

retail installm

is in the bus

ment contrac

Further answ

y or accurate

llegations in

ge of less tha

ons in Paragr

the mails an

ons in Parag

in more than

ut limitation 

o collect con

ility compan

NV 89119. I

m, 208 S. LaS

graph 7. 

of purchasin

ment contrac

siness of pur

ct and lease d

wering the a

ely character

n Paragraph 8

an ten cents o

raph 9. 

nd telephones

graph 10. 

n 100 lawsui

as to time o

nsumer debts

ny organized

It does busin

Salle Street, 

ng or claimin

ct and lease 

rchasing cha

debts, and th

allegations c

rizes the natu

8.

on the dollar

s to collect d

its seeking to

or forum, PY

s. 

d under Dela

ness in Illino

Suite 814, 

ng to purcha

debts, and 

arged-off 

hat it seeks to

ontained in 

ure of its 

r for the debt

debts. 

o collect 

YOD has bee

aware 

ois. 

ase 

o

ts it 

en 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:101
and were

ANSWE

knowledg

same. 

Suite 240

ANSWE

others an

ANSWE

allegation

ANSWE

allegation

year, and

ANSWE

allegation

against p

12.

e charged off

ER: Becau

ge sufficient

13.

00, Chicago,

ER: Defen

14.

nd incurred f

ER: Defen

ns in Paragra

15.

ER: Defen

ns in Paragra

16.

d sends tens o

ER: Defen

ns in Paragra

17.

plaintiff Ther

Because th

f prior to pur

use the term 

t to admit or 

Defendant

, IL 60601. 

ndant admits

Weltman’s

for personal, 

ndant lacks s

aph 14. 

Weltman i

ndant lacks s

aph 15. 

Weltman f

of thousands

ndant lacks s

aph 16. 

On or abou

resa Stumpf 

he purported

rchase, PYO

“purported o

deny the all

t Weltman is

 the allegatio

s practice co

family, or h

ufficient inf

is a “debt co

ufficient inf

files thousan

s of collectio

ufficient inf

ut March 6, 

in the Circu

- 4 -

d obligations

OD is a “debt

obligations”

legations in P

s a law firm w

ons in Parag

onsists prima

household pu

formation as 

ollector” as d

formation as 

nds of collec

on letters eac

formation as 

FACTS 

2012, PYOD

uit Court of C

s were origin

t collector” a

 is not defin

Paragraph 1

with offices

graph 13. 

arily of the c

urposes. 

to form a be

defined in the

to form a be

ction lawsuit

ch year. 

to form a be

D, represente

Cook County

nally owed to

as defined in

ned, Defenda

2 and theref

 at 180 N. L

collection of

elief as to th

e FDCPA. 

elief as to th

s against con

elief as to th

ed by Weltm

y to collect a

o other entiti

n the FDCPA

ant lacks 

fore denies th

LaSalle Stree

f debts owed 

he truth of th

he truth of th

nsumers eac

he truth of th

man, filed su

a purported a

ies 

A. 

he 

et, 

to 

e 

e 

ch 

e 

uit 

auto 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:102
retail inst

number 2

ANSWE

retain cou

ANSWE

allegation

2012, not

ANSWE

voicemai

ANSWE

allegation

Order. 

ANSWE

2004. No

ANSWE

contract. 

ANSWE

tallment con

2012-M1-11

ER: Defen

18.

unsel to defe

ER: Defen

ns in Paragra

19.

ticing up the

ER: Defen

20.

il message st

ER: Defen

ns in Paragra

21.

ER: Defen

22.

o subsequen

ER: Defen

23.

ER: Defen

ntract or leas

3101. 

ndant admits

Plaintiff w

end the laws

ndant lacks s

aph 18. 

Ms. Stump

e Motion for

ndant admits

On May 1

tating PYOD

ndant lacks s

aph 20. 

On May 2

ndant admits

The last pa

nt payments h

ndant denies 

Failure to 

ndant admits

se debt incur

 the allegatio

was required 

suit. 

ufficient inf

pf filed a mo

r May 29, 20

 the allegatio

8, 2012, Dan

D would not 

ufficient inf

9, 2012, the 

 the allegatio

ayment Ms. 

have been m

the allegatio

make her pa

 the allegatio

- 5 -

red for perso

ons in Parag

to go the co

formation as 

otion assertin

012. 

ons in Parag

niel May of 

contest Stum

formation as 

case was di

ons in Parag

Stumpf mad

made. 

ons in Paragr

ayments resu

ons in Parag

onal, family,

graph 17. 

urthouse, pa

to form a be

ng the statute

graph 19. 

Weltman lef

mpf’s Motio

to form a be

smissed with

graph 21. 

de on the deb

raph 22. 

ulted in Ms. 

graph 23. 

, or househo

ay an appear

elief as to th

e of limitatio

ft Plaintiff’s

on to Dismis

elief as to th

h prejudice b

bt was on or

Stumpf defa

old purposes,

rance fee, an

he truth of th

ons on May 

s counsel a 

s. 

he truth of th

by an Agree

r around Apr

aulting on th

, case 

d 

e 

15, 

e 

ed 

ril 

he 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:103
installme

Uniform 

ANSWE

extent an

provides

after the 

ANSWE

extent an

default u

within 4 

ANSWE

extent an

of limitat

contract f

1024, 13

204 Cal. 

First Haw

Bank of D

C.Op.M.A

24.

ent contracts

Commercia

ER: Paragr

n answer is re

25.

: “An action

cause of act

ER: Paragr

n answer is re

26.

nder a lease 

years after th

ER: Paragr

n answer is re

27.

tions and hav

for the sale o

3 Cal. Rptr. 

Rptr. 355 (1

waiian Bank

Decatur v. F

A. v. Fischer

The statute

 and lease de

al Code. 

raph 24 state

equired, Def

Section 2-

n for breach o

ion has accru

raph 25 state

equired, Def

Section 2A

contract, inc

he cause of a

raph 26 state

equired, Def

Most state

ve held that 

of goods. M

497 (1976);

1984); Worre

k v. Powers, 

Farmer, 77 Il

r Crane Co.,

e of limitatio

ebts is four y

es a legal co

fendant deni

725 of the U

of any contra

ued. . . .” Th

es a legal co

fendant deni

A-506 of the

cluding brea

action accru

es a legal co

fendant deni

es have enact

it applies to 

Massey-Fergu

Jack Heske

el v. Farmer

93 Haw. (Ap

ll. App. 3d 5

, 995 F.2d 7

- 6 -

ons applicab

years under 

nclusion to w

es the statem

UCC, applica

act for sale m

he Illinois cit

nclusion to w

es the statem

 UCC, appli

ach of warran

ued. . . .” The

nclusion to w

es the statem

ted the stand

an action to

uson Credit 

ett Lincoln-M

rs Bank of D

pp.) 174, 99

56; 395 N.E.2

89 (7th Cir. 

ble to the col

sections 2-7

which no an

ments in Para

able to retail

must be com

tation is 810

which no an

ments in Para

icable to leas

nty or indem

e Illinois cita

which no an

ments in Para

dard Uniform

o recover the

Corp. v. Cas

Mercury v. M

Delaware, 43

98 P.2d 55, 6

2d 1121 (4th

1993) (Illino

llection of au

725 and 2A-5

nswer is requ

agraph 24. 

l installment 

mmenced wit

0 ILCS 5/2-7

nswer is requ

agraph 25. 

ses, provides

mnity, must b

ation is 810 

nswer is requ

agraph 26. 

m Commerci

e money owe

saulong, 62 

Metcalf, 158 C

0 A.2d 469 

67 (2000); C

h Dist. 1979

ois law); Ba

uto retail 

506 of the 

uired. To the

contracts, 

thin four yea

725. 

uired. To the

s: “An action

be commenc

ILCS 5/2Auired. To the

ial Code stat

ed under a 

Cal. App. 3d

Cal. App. 3d

(Del. 1981);

Citizens Natio

); Falliment

rnes v. 

e

ars 

e

n for 

ced 

506. 

e

tute 

d

d 38; 

;

onal 

to 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:104
Commun

Md. 251,

N.W.2d 5

Corp. v. P

183, 219 

First Nat

Scarsdal

Wuhu Im

Dept. 200

Alice A. B

2002); Bl

N.Y. Mis

v. Trusni

46 Pa. D

46 Pa. D

(C.P. 198

Hardwar

LLC v. Q

ANSWE

extent an

Wisconsi

nity Trust Ba

, 691 A.2d 1

516 (1996); 

Price, 99 Ne

A.2d 858 (1

tional Bank v

e v New Yor

mport & Expo

07); Herba v

Baker, Inc. v

luefin Wear,

sc. LEXIS 5

ik, 54 Ohio A

. & C.2d 747

. & C.4th 13

80); First Na

re Co. v. Cro

Quimette, 175

ER: Paragr

n answer is re

28.

in are referre

nk, 121 S.W

320 (1997); 

D.A.N. J.V. 

ev. 19, 656 P

1966); Ford 

v. Chase, 11

rk City Water

ort Corp. v. 

v. Chichester

v. Norton, 19

 Inc. v Tuesd

817; 2011 N

App.2d 71, 3

7, 6 UCC Re

39 (C.P. 2000

ational Bank

oss Constr. C

5 Vt. 316, 83

raph 27 state

equired, Def

Hereinafte

ed to as the “

W.3d 520 (Ky

First of Am

III v. Clark,

P.2d 851 (19

Motor Cred

8 N.M. 783

r Bd., 33 A.D

Capstone Ca

r, 301 A.D.2

92 Misc. 2d 

day’s Child 

NY Slip Op 5

375 N.E.2d 7

ep. Serv. 803

0); Industria

k v. Keefer, 7

Co., 491 S.W

30 A.2d 38 (

es a legal co

fendant deni

er, the Distric

“applicable j

- 7 -

y. App. 2003

. Bank v. Th

 218 S.W.2d

983); Associa

dit Co. v. Arc

, 887 P.2d 1

D.3d 1011, 8

apital, LLC,

2d 822, 823, 

511; 747 N.

Boutique, In

52231U (Sup

72 (Ohio App

3 (C.P 1969)

al Valley Ban

76 Pa. D. & C

W.2d 228 (19

(2003). 

nclusion to w

es the statem

ct of Columb

jurisdictions

3); Scott v. F

hompson, 217

d 455 (Mo.A

ates Discoun

ce, 348 N.J.S

250 (1994); 

824 N.Y.S.2

, 39 A.D.3d 

 754 N.Y.S.

Y.S.2d 146 

nc., 13766/1

p.Ct. Kings C

p. 1977); Gi

); Action Ma

nk v. Sharpe

C. 4th 233 (C

972); Daimle

which no an

ments in Para

bia and the 4

s.” (Louisian

Ford Motor C

7 Mich. App

App. 2006); M

nt Corp. v. P

Super 198 (A

Matter of V

2d 325 (2nd D

314; 834 N.

2d 695 (3rd 

(Sup.Ct. Ren

0, 33 Misc. 

Co. Dec. 14

imbel Bros., 

anagement In

e, 15 Pa. D. &

C.P. 2005); 

erChrysler S

nswer is requ

agraph 27. 

41 states oth

na has not ad

Credit Co., 3

p. 581; 552 

Mobile Disc

Palmer, 47 N

App. Div. 20

Village of 

Dept. 2006)

Y.S.2d 129 

Dept. 2003)

nsselaer Co.

3d 1233A; 2

, 2011); May

Inc. v. Cohe

nc. v. Fratel

& C.3rd 506

Ideal Builde

Servs. N. Am

uired. To the

her than 

dopted Articl

345 

ount 

N.J. 

002); 

; 

(1st 

); 

.

2011 

y Co. 

en, 

llo, 

6

ers 

m., 

e

les 2 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:105
and 2A o

standard.

ANSWE

other tha

state a le

Defendan

equitable

Ill. App. 

assignor 

Klehm v.

includes 

ANSWE

Courts. P

answer is

on, and th

jurisdicti

ANSWE

barred de

ANSWE

of the UCC a

.) 

ER: Defen

n Wisconsin

gal conclusi

nt denies the

29.

e defenses ex

3d 771, 783

and, in so do

 Grecian Ch

the statute o

ER: Defen

Paragraph 29

s required, D

30.

hreaten to fi

ions that are 

ER: Defen

31.

ebts, to not d

ER: Defen

at all and the

ndant admits

n as “applica

on to which 

e remaining s

“[T]he ass

xisting at the

, 731 N.E.2d

oing, is subj

halet, Ltd., 1

of limitations

ndant admits

9 states a leg

Defendant de

Defendant

le suit on au

more than fo

ndant denies 

It is the po

disclose the f

ndant denies 

e limitations 

 that Plaintif

able jurisdict

no answer i

statements in

signee *** ta

e time of the 

d 915 (5th Di

ect to any de

64 Ill. App. 

s. Coryell v.

 Paragraph 2

gal conclusio

enies the stat

ts PYOD and

uto retail inst

four years old

the allegatio

olicy and pra

fact that they

the allegatio

- 8 -

provisions i

ff refers to th

tions. The re

is required. 

n Paragraph 

akes the assi

assignment

ist. 2000). “[

efense that m

3d 610, 617

. Klehm, 157

29 recites pa

on to which 

tements in P

d Weltman r

tallment con

d at the time

ons in Paragr

actice of defe

y are time-ba

ons in Paragr

in the other l

he District o

emaining all

To the exten

28. 

gnor’s intere

.” John O. S

[T]he assign

might be urg

7, 518 N.E.2d

7 Ill. 462; 41

arts of the cit

no answer is

aragraph 29

regularly dem

ntracts and le

e of the dema

raph 30. 

endants, whe

arred. 

raph 31. 

listed states a

of Columbia 

legations in P

nt an answer

est subject to

Schofield, Inc

nee stands in

ged against th

d 187 (1st Di

1 N.E. 864, 8

ted decisions

s required. T

. 

mand payme

ease debts in

and, filing, o

en seeking to

are nonand the 41 s

Paragraph 2

r is required,

o all legal an

c. v. Nikkel, 

n the shoes o

he assignor.”

ist. 1987). T

868-69 (1895

s by Illinois 

To the exten

ent of, file su

n the applicab

or threat. 

o collect tim

states 

8 

,

nd 

314 

f the 

”

This 

5). 

nt an 

uit 

ble 

meCase: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:106
barred de

ANSWE

consume

limitation

may crea

that debt

with Ass

disclose t

limitation

LLC, Cas

ANSWE

statemen

informati

ANSWE

for its an

of 15 U.S

consume

ANSWE

32.

ebts, to not d

ER: Defen

33.

rs do not kn

ns . . . . Whe

ate the mislea

.” (http://ww

et Acceptan

to consumer

ns. United S

se No. 8:12-

ER: Defen

nts Plaintiff e

ion as to form

34.

ER: Defen

nswer to Para

35.

S.C. §§1692

rs on time-b

ER: Defen

It is the po

disclose the d

ndant denies 

The Feder

ow their leg

en a collector

ading impre

ww.ftc.gov/o

ce, one of th

rs when it is 

States of Ame

cv-182-T-27

ndant admits

extracts in th

m a belief as

Plaintiff in

ndant adopts 

agraph 34. 

Defendant

e, 1692e(2),

barred debts w

ndant denies 

olicy and pra

dates of the t

the allegatio

ral Trade Com

al rights wit

r tells a cons

ssion that th

opa/2012/01/

he largest deb

attempting t

erica (For th

7EAJ (M.D.F

 that the web

he first senten

s to the truth

COUN

ncorporates p

and incorpo

ts engaged in

 1692e(5), 1

without disc

the allegatio

- 9 -

actice of defe

transactions 

ons in Paragr

mmission (“

th respect to 

sumer that sh

he collector c

/asset.shtm) 

bt buyers in 

to collect deb

he Federal T

Fla.). 

bsite cited in

nce of Parag

h of the rema

NT I - FDCP

paragraphs 1

orates its ans

n unfair and 

692e(10), an

closure of tha

ons in Paragr

endants, whe

giving rise t

raph 32. 

“FTC”) has d

collection o

he owes mon

can sue the c

The FTC en

the United S

bts that are b

Trade Comm

n Paragraph 

graph 33. Pl

aining allega

PA 

1-33. 

swers to Para

deceptive ac

nd 1692f, by

at fact. 

raph 35. 

en seeking to

to the debts.

determined t

of old debts p

ney and dem

consumer in 

ntered into a 

States, requi

barred by the

mission) v. As

33 contains 

laintiff lacks

ations in Para

agraphs 1-33

cts and pract

y dunning an

o collect tim

.

that “Most 

past the statu

mands payme

court to coll

consent dec

iring that it 

e statute of 

sset Accepta

the partial 

s sufficient 

agraph 33. 

3 above as an

tices, in viol

nd suing 

meute of 

ent, it 

lect 

cree 

ance, 

nd 

lation 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:107
ANSWE

violation

ANSWE

violation

Fed.R.Ci

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

36.

repre

Witho

condu

ER: Defen

n of the FDC

37.

collec

ER: Defen

n of the FDC

38.

iv.P. 23(a) an

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

Section 16

§ 1692e. 

A debt co

esentation or

out limiting

uct is a viola

(2) Th

(A)

(5) Th

that is not

(10) Th

collect or 

concernin

ndant admits

PA occurred

Section 16

§ 1692f. 

A debt co

ct or attemp

ndant admits

PA occurred

Plaintiff br

nd 23(b)(3). 

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

692e provide

False or mi

llector may

r means in c

g the genera

ation of this

he false repr

) the cha

he threat to 

t intended t

he use of any

attempt to 

ng a consum

 Paragraph 3

d. 

692f provide

Unfair 

llector may

pt to collect 

 Paragraph 3

d. 

CLASS A

rings this cla

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

- 10 -

es: 

isleading re

y not use any

connection w

l applicatio

s section: . . 

resentation 

aracter, amo

take any ac

o be taken. 

y false repre

collect any

mer. . . . 

36 recites pa

es: 

practices [S

y not use unf

any debt. . .

37 recites pa

ALLEGATI

aim on behal

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 38. 

epresentatio

y false, dece

with the col

n of the for

. 

ofount, or leg

ction that ca

. . . 

esentation o

debt or to o

art of the FD

Section 808

fair or unco

. . 

art of the FD

IONS 

lf of two cla

claim on beh

hould be cer

ons [Section 

eptive, or m

llection of a

regoing, the 

gal status of 

annot legally

or deceptive

obtain infor

DCPA. Defen

 of P.L.] 

onscionable 

DCPA. Defen

asses, pursua

half of two cl

rtified and ac

807 of P.L.

misleading

any debt. 

following

any debt; . 

y be taken o

e means to 

rmation 

ndant denies

means to 

ndant denies

ant to 

lasses. 

ccordingly 

] 

. . 

or 

s any 

s any 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:108
applicabl

or caused

installme

repossess

period be

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

applicabl

caused to

contract a

chargeof

June 14, 

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

members

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

39.

le jurisdictio

d to be sent a

ent contract a

sion, or char

eginning Jun

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

40.

le jurisdictio

o be sent a le

and lease de

ff, (e) which 

2011 and en

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

41.

s is not pract

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

Class One

ons (b) with r

a letter (direc

and lease deb

rgeoff, (e) wh

ne 14, 2011 a

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

Class Two

ons (b) with r

etter (directly

ebts (d) more

letter was se

nding July 4,

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

On inform

ticable. 

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

 consists of 

respect to wh

ctly or by an

bts (d) more

hich letter w

and ending J

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

o consists of

respect to wh

y or by an ag

e than four y

ent or lawsui

, 2012. 

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

mation and be

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

- 11 -

(a) all indivi

hom defend

n agent or att

e than four y

was sent or la

July 4, 2012.

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 39. 

f (a) all indiv

hom defend

gent or attorn

years after th

it was pendi

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 40. 

elief, each cl

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 41. 

iduals with a

ant PYOD, L

torney) (c) to

ears after the

awsuit was p

.

claim on beh

hould be cer

viduals with 

ant Weltman

ney) (c) to c

he later of de

ng at any tim

claim on beh

hould be cer

lass is so num

claim on beh

hould be cer

addresses in 

LLC filed a 

o collect aut

e later of def

pending at an

half of two cl

rtified and ac

addresses in

n filed a law

collect auto r

fault, reposs

me during a 

half of two cl

rtified and ac

merous that 

half of two cl

rtified and ac

one of the 

lawsuit or se

to retail 

fault, 

ny time durin

lasses. 

ccordingly 

n one of the 

wsuit or sent 

retail installm

session or 

period begin

lasses. 

ccordingly 

joinder of al

lasses. 

ccordingly 

ent 

ng a 

or 

ment 

nning 

ll 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:109
common 

predomin

without d

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

based on

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

has retain

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

matter, in

mechanis

42.

questions pr

nant commo

disclosure of

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

43.

 the same fa

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

44.

ned counsel 

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

45.

n that: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

sm under the

There are 

redominate o

n questions 

f that fact an

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

Plaintiff’s 

actual and leg

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

Plaintiff w

experienced

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

A class act

Individual

Members o

Congress i

e FDCPA. 

questions of

over any que

are whether 

nd whether su

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

claim is typ

gal theories.

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

will fairly and

d in class act

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

tion is super

l actions are 

of the class a

intended cla

- 12 -

f law and fac

estions relati

defendants 

uch practice 

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 42. 

pical of the c

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 43. 

d adequately

ions and FD

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 44. 

rior for the fa

not econom

are likely to 

ss actions to

ct common t

ing to indivi

attempt to c

 violates the

claim on beh

hould be cer

laims of the 

claim on beh

hould be cer

y represent th

DCPA litigati

claim on beh

hould be cer

fair and effic

mically feasib

be unaware

o be the princ

o the class m

idual class m

ollect time-b

e FDCPA. 

half of two cl

rtified and ac

 class memb

half of two cl

rtified and ac

he class mem

ion. 

half of two cl

rtified and ac

ient adjudica

ble; 

e of their righ

cipal enforce

members, wh

members. Th

barred debts 

lasses. 

ccordingly 

bers. All are

lasses. 

ccordingly 

mbers. Plain

lasses. 

ccordingly 

ation of this 

hts; and

ement 

hich 

he 

e

ntiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:110
ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

W

defendan

ANSWE

for its an

ANSWE

denies it 

practices

barred de

ANSWE

and comm

ANSWE

obtaining

ANSWE

W

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

WHEREFOR

nt on Count I

46.

ER: Defen

nswer to Para

47.

ER: Defen

committed a

48.

, in violation

ebts. 

ER: Defen

49.

merce. 

ER: Defen

50.

g money from

ER: Defen

WHEREFOR

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

RE, the Cour

I of Plaintiff

COUNT II 

Plaintiff in

ndant adopts 

agraph 46. 

This claim

ndant admits

any violation

Defendant

n of 815 ILC

ndant denies 

Defendant

ndant denies 

Defendant

m plaintiff a

ndant denies 

RE, the Cour

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

rt should ente

f’s Complain

- ILLINOI

ncorporates p

and incorpo

m is against P

 Plaintiff pu

n of the Illin

t PYOD, LL

CS 505/2, by

the allegatio

t PYOD, LL

the allegatio

t PYOD, LL

and the class 

the allegatio

rt should ente

- 13 -

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 45. 

er a judgmen

nt. 

S CONSUM

paragraphs 1

orates its ans

PYOD. 

urports to brin

nois Consum

C engaged i

y dunning an

ons in Paragr

C engaged i

ons in Paragr

C engaged i

members. 

ons in Paragr

er a judgmen

claim on beh

hould be cer

nt against pl

MER FRAU

1-33. 

swers to Para

ng this claim

mer Fraud & D

in unfair and

nd threatenin

raph 48. 

in such cond

raph 49. 

in such cond

raph 50. 

nt against pl

half of two cl

rtified and ac

laintiff and in

UD ACT 

agraphs 1-33

m against PY

Deceptive P

d deceptive a

ng and filing 

duct in the co

duct for the p

laintiff and in

lasses. 

ccordingly 

n favor of 

3 above as an

YOD. Defen

ractices Act

acts and 

suits on tim

ourse of trad

purpose of 

n favor of 

nd 

ndant 

t. 

mede 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:111
defendan

23(a) and

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

respect to

(directly 

(d) more 

sent or la

4, 2012. 

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

members

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

questions

nt on Count I

51.

d 23(b)(3). 

ER: Defenda

nt denies tha

he allegations

52.

o whom defe

or by an age

than four ye

awsuit was p

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

53.

s is not pract

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

54.

s predomina

II of Plaintif

Plaintiff br

ant admits P

at any class e

s contained i

Class Thre

endant PYOD

ent or attorne

ears after the

pending at an

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

On inform

ticable. 

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

There are 

te over any q

ff’s Complain

CLASS A

rings this cla

Plaintiff has f

exists or that

in Paragraph

ee consists o

D, LLC filed

ey) (c) to co

e later of def

ny time durin

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

mation and be

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

questions of

questions rel

- 14 -

nt. 

ALLEGATI

aim on behal

filed this cla

t any class sh

h 51. 

of (a) all indi

d a lawsuit o

llect auto ret

fault, reposse

ng a period b

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 52. 

elief, the clas

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 53. 

f law and fac

lating to ind

IONS 

lf of a class,

aim on behal

hould be cer

ividuals with

or sent or cau

tail installm

ession or cha

beginning Ju

claim on beh

hould be cer

ss is so num

claim on beh

hould be cer

ct common t

dividual class

, pursuant to

f of a purpor

rtified and ac

h Illinois add

used to be se

ent contract 

argeoff, (e) w

une 14, 2009

half of a purp

rtified and ac

merous that jo

half of a purp

rtified and ac

o the class, w

s members. 

o Fed.R.Civ.P

rted class. 

ccordingly 

dresses (b) w

ent a letter 

and lease de

which letter 

9 and ending

ported class. 

ccordingly 

oinder of all 

ported class. 

ccordingly 

which comm

The 

P. 

with 

ebts 

was 

g July 

mon 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:112
predomin

debts wit

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

based on

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

has retain

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

matter, in

ANSWE

Defendan

denies th

nant commo

thout disclos

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

55.

 the same fa

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

56.

ned counsel 

ER: Defend

nt denies tha

he allegations

57.

n that: 

ER: Defen

nt denies tha

he allegations

n questions 

sure of that f

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

Plaintiff’s 

actual and leg

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

Plaintiff w

experienced

dant admits P

at any class e

s contained i

A class act

a. Ind

b. Me

ndant admits

at any class e

s contained i

are whether 

fact. 

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

claim is typ

gal theories.

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

will fairly and

d in class act

Plaintiff has 

exists or that

in Paragraph

tion is super

dividual acti

embers of th

 Plaintiff ha

exists or that

in Paragraph

- 15 -

defendant P

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 54. 

pical of the c

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 55. 

d adequately

ions. 

filed this cla

t any class sh

h 56. 

rior for the fa

ons are not e

he class are li

s filed this c

t any class sh

h 57. 

PYOD attem

claim on beh

hould be cer

laims of the 

claim on beh

hould be cer

y represent th

aim on behal

hould be cer

fair and effic

economically

ikely to be u

claim on beh

hould be cer

mpts to collec

half of a purp

rtified and ac

 class memb

half of a purp

rtified and ac

he class mem

lf of a purpo

rtified and ac

ient adjudica

y feasible; 

unaware of th

half of a purp

rtified and ac

ct time-barre

ported class. 

ccordingly 

bers. All are

ported class. 

ccordingly 

mbers. Plain

orted class. 

ccordingly 

ation of this 

heir rights. 

ported class. 

ccordingly 

ed 

e

ntiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:113
 - 16 - 

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

Defendant on all counts in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

First Affirmative Defense 

 For its first affirmative defense, Defendant states that the Illinois litigation privilege and 

bars Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s claims challenge statements made in the 

collection litigation. MacGregor v. Rutberg, no. 06-2829, slip op., p. 2-3 (7th Cir. February 27, 

2007); NSB Tech Inc. v. Spec Direct Marketing, Inc., 2004 WL 1918708, *3(N.D. Ill. 2004). 

Second Affirmative Defense 

 Defendant states that neither Plaintiff nor any putative class member have suffered any 

actual damages as a result of the alleged acts and/or omissions of Defendant. 

Third Affirmative Defense 

 Defendant states that any violation of the FDCPA, which it denies occurred, was the 

result of a bona fide error in spite of procedures reasonably designed to avoid such error. At all 

times Defendant acted in good faith and without intent to harm plaintiff or any punitive class 

member. 

Date: September 25, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 Defendant PYOD, LLC 

By: s/ Gary S. Caplan 

 One of Its Attorneys 

Gary S. Caplan (Atty. # 6198263) 

David A. Maas (Atty. # 6306482) 

REED SMITH LLP 

10 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: (312) 207-1000 

Fax: (312) 207-6400 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:114
 - 17 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Gary S. Caplan, hereby certify that on September 25, 2012 I caused to be filed electronically 

the attached DEFENDANT PYOD, LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which automatically will send notice to those 

parties who have appeared and are so registered. 

By: s/ Gary S. Caplan 

 One of Its Attorneys 

Gary S. Caplan (Atty. # 6198263) 

David A. Maas (Atty. # 6306482) 

REED SMITH LLP 

10 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: (312) 207-1000 

Fax: (312) 207-6400 

Case: 1:12-cv-04688 Document #: 29 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:115