`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LORENZIE HUMPHREYS, and 

YVETTE RHEAMES, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

1:12-cv-04671

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

This is a nationwide class action complaint pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. 

(“Santander” or “defendant”). Lorenzie Humphreys (“Humphreys”) Yvette 

Rheames (“Rheames”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 

(collectively with Humphreys and Rheames, “plaintiffs”), seek redress for 

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

(“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

(“TCPA”), and breach of contract as set forth herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:69
2

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Lorenzie Humphreys is an adult resident citizen of Cook

County, Illinois. Mr. Humphreys currently resides in the City of Chicago in Cook 

County, Illinois.

2. Plaintiff Yvette Rheames is an adult resident citizen of Cook County, 

Illinois. Ms. Rheames currently resides in the City of Chicago in Cook County, 

Illinois.

3. Santander is an Illinois corporation with its principal office located in 

Dallas, Texas. Santander has conducted business in Cook County in Illinois during 

the time period pertinent to the allegations in this complaint. Santander is a “debt 

collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This class action is based on the FDCPA, the TCPA, and breach of 

contract. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts numerous state and federal claims against 

defendant. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are related to the same collection activity 

that forms the basis for plaintiffs’ FDCPA and TCPA claims. It is therefore evident 

that plaintiffs’ state law claims in this case are so related to claims in the action 

within this Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 

controversy and, thus, fall squarely within this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:70
3

supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. This Court, 

additionally, should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law 

claims in order to avoid an unnecessary duplication of judicial resources.

5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391, since a substantial part of the 

events giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district and division 

and since the defendant is subject to the personal and general jurisdiction of this 

Court.

6. Defendant’s wrongful activities were directed to this jurisdiction. 

Plaintiffs’ rights were damaged or impaired in this jurisdiction, and significant 

damages and losses were suffered in this jurisdiction.

7. Santander regularly, continuously, and systematically conducts 

business in the state of Illinois and is an Illinois corporation.

NATURE OF THE CASE

8. Santander is one of the largest subprime automobile servicing 

companies in the world. As of 2010, its debt collection portfolio was 

approximately $15 billion. Although the debts it collects are in fact owned by 

others, Santander collects the debts in its own name without disclosing that it is not 

the owner of the debt. Therefore, it functions as an undisclosed agent for the true 

owner. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:71
4

9. Defendant’s routine business practices involve taking over the 

collection of debts previously collected by others and then: (a) engaging in 

unlawful harassment and unlawful collection methods, and (b) imposing improper 

fees never agreed to and not authorized by the contracts they are servicing. It is a 

very lucrative but unlawful business plan. 

10. Santander is so eager to harass, abuse, and annoy its customers that its 

repeated and continuous calls each day are from multiple Santander telephone 

numbers. It calls cell numbers without prior authorization. 

11. Santander also begins its calls long before the grace period for the 

payment in question runs. For example, for loans due on the 1st with a 10 day 

grace period through the 10th, Santander’s harassing calls begin on or about the 

2nd. 

12. Furthermore, it employs the same methods to abuse, annoy, and 

harass the friends, family and references of the debtors all in an unlawful attempt 

to intentionally harass, abuse and annoy its customers and their family and friends. 

13. Defendant willfully, knowingly, regularly, and routinely charges and 

collects fees not authorized by the contracts with debtors, including collecting late 

fees when payments were not late and “repo fees” unrelated to any expense of 

repossession. Santander’s conduct in assessing undue fees is so enthusiastic that 

upon acquiring accounts to collect it not only charges unlawful fees in the future, 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:72
5

but Santander routinely goes back and retroactively assesses unlawful fees 

pertaining to time periods long before it had anything to do with the loans, adding 

those fees to the then current bill. In some cases this occurs years after the 

purported event, which never in fact even occurred. 

14. Defendant’s routine business practices also include the use of 

prerecorded automatic telephone dialing systems and artificial or voice systems 

willfully and knowingly directed to cell phones without the express prior consent 

of the person being called. The persons called without express permission using 

automatic telephone dialing systems, artificial and prerecorded voice systems 

include not only the debtors but the friends, family and references of the debtors.

15. Santander’s business practices are so outrageous that it has a rare “F” 

rating with the Better Business Bureau in Dallas, its headquarters’ city.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF HUMPHREYS

16. In 2005, Mr. Humphreys purchased a 2005 Mitsubishi Outlander (“the 

vehicle”) from Webb Chevrolet in Chicago, Illinois. 

17. Mr. Humphreys originally financed the vehicle through an entity other 

than Santander.

18. In approximately 2010, Mr. Humphreys began receiving telephone 

calls from Santander attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance on the 

vehicle note.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:73
6

19. Mr. Humphreys has a cellular telephone with an assigned telephone 

number ending in 5157.

20. Beginning in 2010, Santander telephoned the 5157 cellular number 

more than 100 times using an automated telephone dialing system and left 

numerous pre-recorded messages in Mr. Humphreys’ voice mailbox.

21. Mr. Humphreys began receiving these telephone calls from Santander 

attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance on the vehicle note.

22. Santander’s calls to Mr. Humphreys were initiated by an autodialer or 

a predictive dialer. 

23. An autodialer or predictive dialer places calls without human 

intervention until a person answers the call, in which case the dialer attempts to 

connect the person answering the call with a human debt collector. 

24. Mr. Humphreys did not authorize the automated placement of calls to 

his cellular telephone.

25. Mr. Humphreys told Santander to stop calling his cell phone; 

however, Santander persisted in calling Mr. Humphreys’ cellular phone.

26. Since that time, Mr. Humphreys received numerous harassing and 

misleading telephonic communications from Santander’s agents attempting to 

collect upon the alleged debt on his cell phone and on his home phone number. 

Santander called these lines multiple times per day. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:74
7

27. When he spoke with a live person, Santander repeatedly misled and 

deceived Mr. Humphreys as to the actual balance owed on the vehicle note. 

28. Santander attempted to coerce and embarrass Mr. Humphreys into 

making additional payments by repeatedly calling Mr. Humphreys an excessive 

number of times with the intent to harass. 

29. Santander’s agents have repeatedly threatened Mr. Humphreys in an 

attempt to collect upon the alleged debt.

30. Santander’s agents have attempted to belittle, abuse, and oppress Mr. 

Humphreys in their attempts to collect upon the alleged debt. 

31. Santander’s agents have left numerous messages on Mr. Humphreys’ 

cellular and home voicemail services failing to disclose that the purpose of their 

communications was an attempt to collect upon the alleged debt and using 

automated or predictive dialers. 

32. In short, Mr. Humphreys has been harassed, misled, deceived, 

coerced, and threatened in violation of the FDCPA and TCPA.

33. Santander furthermore repeatedly misrepresented the loan balance and 

breached its contract with Mr. Humphreys by charging fees not authorized in the 

contract.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:75
8

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO PLAINTIFF RHEAMES

34. Ms. Rheames was harassed and received numerous phone calls from 

Santander regarding another person’s alleged debt. 

35. Ms. Rheames has a cellular telephone with an assigned telephone 

number ending in 3624.

36. Ms. Rheames told Santander to stop calling her cell phone; however, 

Santander persisted in calling Ms. Rheames’ cellular phone.

37. Beginning in approximately 2011, Santander telephoned the 3624 

cellular number several times using an automated telephone dialing system and left 

numerous pre-recorded messages in Ms. Rheames’ voice mailbox.

38. Santander’s calls to Ms. Rheames were initiated by an autodialer or a 

predictive dialer.

39. An autodialer or predictive dialer places calls without human 

intervention until a person answers the call, in which case the dialer attempts to 

connect the person answering the call with a human debt collector.

40. Ms. Rheames repeatedly told Santander to stop calling her regarding 

the other person’s alleged debt; however, Santander persisted in contacting Ms. 

Rheames and left numerous voicemails on her message service.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:76
9

41. Santander was calling Ms. Rheames’ telephone number for the 

purpose of collecting an alleged debt owed by another person to a lender other than 

Santander.

42. Santander intended to contact Ms. Rheames regarding another 

person’s alleged debt.

43. Prior to receiving calls from Santander, Ms. Rheames had no contact 

or communications with Santander, and did not authorize Santander to contact her.

44. Ms. Rheames did not authorize the automated placement of calls to 

her cellular telephone.

45. Santander’s agents have repeatedly threatened Ms. Rheames in an 

attempt to collect upon the alleged debt.

46. Santander’s agents have attempted to belittle, abuse, and oppress Ms. 

Rheames in their attempts to collect upon the alleged debt.

47. Santander’s agents have left numerous messages on Ms. Rheames’ 

cellular voicemail service failing to disclose that the purpose of their 

communications was an attempt to collect upon the alleged debt and using 

automated or predictive dialers.

48. In short, Ms. Rheames has been harassed, misled, deceived, coerced, 

and threatened in violation of the FDCPA and the TCPA. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:77
10

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiffs seek to represent is composed 

of and defined as:

(1) All persons in the United States who are current or former 

customers of Santander within the previous six years and all other 

persons to whom Santander made telephone calls for the collection of 

debts from its customers, and (2) all persons that were called by 

Santander using an automatic telephone dialing service and/or an 

artificial or prerecorded voice where the evidence shows that the 

person received at least one phone call placed by the automatic 

telephone dialing service and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice and 

(i) where there is no evidence of prior express consent to call that 

person’s cellular telephone number by the automatic telephone dialing 

service and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice for a time period 

consistent with the statute of limitations for TCPA claims or (ii) 

where the prior express consent to call was withdrawn prior to the call 

being placed.

49. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a 

class action pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23(a)(1)-(4) and Rule 23(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, 

typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements thereof because:

a. The plaintiff class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all 

members is impracticable under the standard of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(a)(1).

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

class, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), and 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:78
11

predominate over any questions, which affect only individual 

members of the class within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(a)(2). These common questions of law and fact 

include, without limitation:

i. Whether defendant engaged in violations of laws as alleged 

herein;

ii. Whether defendant by nature of its wrongful conduct is 

liable for damages and losses resulting from the conduct 

alleged herein; and

iii. Whether the defendant had a policy and uniform practice 

with respect to harassing consumer, family members, 

friends, and/or references, misleading consumers, and 

charging and collecting unauthorized fees. 

c. The plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of 

the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). The 

representative plaintiffs and all members of the class sustained 

damages arising out of defendant’s common course of conduct in 

violation of the law as complained herein. The losses of each 

member of the class were caused directly by defendant’s wrongful 

conduct in violation of law as alleged herein.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:79
12

d. The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the class as required by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs have no interests, which are adverse 

to the interests of the class members. Plaintiffs were harassed, 

mislead, and/or charged unauthorized fees by defendant. Plaintiffs 

have retained counsel, who have substantial experience and 

success in the prosecution of class action and consumer litigation.

e. Defendant’s scheme affected all class members similarly. Plaintiffs 

and all members of the class were treated the same. As a result, the 

issues which affect the plaintiffs and the class members in common 

predominate over those which affect only the interest of any 

particular class member. Thus, common questions of law and fact 

greatly predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only 

individual members of the class. 

f. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23(b) since individual joinder of all members of 

the class is impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by 

each individual member of the class may be relatively small, the 

expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:80
13

or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the 

wrongs done to them. The cost to the court system of adjudication 

of such individualized litigation would be substantial. 

Individualized litigation would also present the potential for 

inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would magnify the 

delay and expense to all parties and the court system in multiple 

trials of the factual issues of the case. By contrast, the conduct of 

this action as a class action presents far fewer management 

difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court 

system, and protects the rights of each class member.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT

50. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs and 

subsequent factual averments in this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

51. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692b(1) because its agents 

communicated with persons other than the consumer and failed to provide their 

identity and state that they are confirming or correcting location information. 

52. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692b(2) by telling persons other than 

the consumer that the consumer owed a debt.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:81
14

53. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692b(3) by repeatedly communicating 

with persons other than the consumer without reasonable belief that the earlier 

response was erroneous or incomplete or that such person now has complete or 

correct information.

54. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(3) by contacting plaintiffs 

and the class at their place of employment after Santander had reason to know the 

employer prohibited the consumer from receiving such communication.

55. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b) by communication with third 

parties other than those permitted by that paragraph except as provided in 15 

U.S.C. §1692b.

56. Santander used language that was obscene, profane, or had the natural 

consequence of abusing the consumer in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(1).

57. Santander caused telephones to ring and engaged persons in telephone 

conversations repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692d(5). 

58. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) by placing telephone calls 

without meaningful disclosure of the callers’ identity.

59. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(2) by falsely representing the 

amount of debt.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:82
15

60. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11) by failing to make the 

required disclosures in the initial written communications from Santander.

61. Santander violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1) by collecting money from 

plaintiffs and the class (interest, fees, charges and expenses) not expressly 

authorized by the contract or permitted by law.

62. Santander failed to provide the notice required by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692g(a).

63. As a proximate result of Santander’s actions, plaintiffs and the class

were caused to suffer harm.

64. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an award of statutory damages 

or actual damages, whichever is higher, plus costs and attorneys’ fees for 

Santander’s violations of the FDCPA.

Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiffs and the class demand judgment 

against Santander for statutory or actual damages, whichever is higher, plus costs, 

attorneys’ fees and such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate or to 

which plaintiffs and the class may be entitled. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT

65. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs and 

subsequent factual averments of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:83
16

66. Santander violated the TCPA by the calls made to plaintiffs and the 

class. The violations include the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and 

artificial and prerecorded voice messages directed to cell numbers without 

plaintiffs’ and the class’s express permission.

67. Santander’s actions were done willfully or knowingly.

68. Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an award of statutory damages 

for Santander’s violations of the TCPA. 

69. Each call is a separate violation and entitles plaintiffs and the class to 

statutory damages against Santander in the amount of at least Five Hundred 

Dollars ($500.00) per call. Because the violations by Santander were committed 

willfully and knowingly, plaintiffs and the class request that a statutory damage of 

One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) per call be assessed pursuant to 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiff demands judgment against 

Santander for statutory or actual damages, whichever is higher, plus costs and such 

additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate or to which plaintiff and the 

class may be entitled.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:84
17

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT

70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the preceding paragraphs and 

subsequent factual averments of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

71. Defendant had a contract with plaintiffs and the class or was acting as 

an agent on behalf of an undisclosed principal. Santander in either event is liable 

for the breach.

72. Defendant breached the contract with plaintiffs and the class by 

imposing unauthorized fees, including but not limited to late fees, which were not 

due, and repossession fees not authorized by the contract. 

73. As a consequence of defendant’s breach of contract, plaintiffs and the 

class suffered damages. 

Wherefore, premises considered, plaintiffs and the class demand judgment 

against Santander for actual and compensatory damages, plus interest, costs, and 

such additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate or to which plaintiffs and 

the class may be entitled. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs and the class seek the following 

relief:

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:85
18

a) Following appropriate discovery, an order certifying this cause as a 

nationwide class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, with 

appropriate subclasses as the Court deems appropriate, and notice as applicable to 

the absent class members, and appointing plaintiffs as class representatives;

b) A declaration that Santander’s nationwide pattern and practice of 

conduct as alleged herein constitutes a violation of the FDCPA, the TCPA, and 

breach of contract with respect to plaintiffs and the class;

c) Statutory damages of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) from 

Santander for violations of the FDCPA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

d) Statutory damages of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars 

($1,500.00) per call for Santander’s willful and knowing violations of the TCPA 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) or in the alternative at least Five Hundred 

Dollars ($500.00) per call;

e) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from Santander for violations of 

the FDCPA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;

f) Appropriate injunctive relief requiring Santander to stop violating the 

FDCPA and the TCPA;

g) Actual and compensatory damages;

h) Interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees; and

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:86
19

i) Such further and different relief as the Court may deem appropriate or 

as plaintiffs and the class are entitled to under the law.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by struck jury of all issues.

/s/ S. Jerome Levy________________

S. Jerome Levy

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff

S. Jerome Levy

Karin A. Olson

S. Jerome Levy & Associates, P.C.

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1617

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Telephone: 312.832.1616

Facsimile: 312.832.0270

sjlevy@jeromelevylaw.com

kaolson@jeromelevylaw.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:87