1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

GAINESVILLE DIVISION 

JULIE ANN SMITH, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-00141 

v. 

HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., 

Defendant. 

 / 

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Julie Ann Smith (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. (“Sulaiman”), complaining as to the conduct of Hunter 

Warfield, Inc., ( “Defendant”) as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692, violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227, and 

violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”) pursuant to 

Florida Statutes §559.55. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 14
2 

2. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the FDCPA, 

TCPA, and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the action arises under the laws of the 

United States. 

3. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law FCCPA claim 

under 28 U.S.C. 

§1367. 

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Plaintiff resides 

in the Northern District of Florida, Defendant conducts business in the Northern 

District of Florida, and a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to 

the claims occurred within the Northern District of Florida. 

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a natural person over 18-years-of-age who resides in the Northern 

District of Florida and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C §1692a(3), 

and is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(39). 

6. Defendant is a foreign corporation that is in the business of collecting 

defaulted debt owed to others. Defendant’s principle office is located at 4620 

Woodland Corporate Blvd., Tampa, Florida 33614. 

7. Defendant principal business purpose is to provide debt collection and asset 

investigation services to its creditor clients. Defendant also specializes in multihousing, commercial, funeral care, and educational markets, as well as serves 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 14
3 

educational-student housing and student loans, military housing, utility billing, 

building and medical supply, and auction bid defaults. The company was founded in 

1983 and is based in Tampa, Florida. 

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

8. In 2017, Plaintiff moved out of her residential apartment located at the Retreat 

at Magnolia Parke in Gainesville, Florida. 

9. At the time Plaintiff moved out of her apartment, Plaintiff believed to have 

satisfied all of her obligations with her landlord and the management company. 

10. In late 2018, Plaintiff began receiving unknown collection calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number (386) XXX-3743. 

11.At all times relevant to the instant action, Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, 

owner, possessor, and operator of the cellular telephone ending in 3743. 

12.Immediately after the calls began, Plaintiff answered a phone call to her 

cellular telephone from a representative of Defendant. The representative informed 

Plaintiff that it was calling to collect a past due debt related to her previous residence 

in Gainesville, Florida. 

13.Plaintiff was perplexed why Defendant was calling her because the debt 

Defendant was attempting to collect was fully satisfied. 

14.Plaintiff notified Defendant that the debt was fully satisfied and demanded 

that Defendant cease calls to her cellular phone. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 14
4 

15.Plaintiff never provided her cellular telephone number to Defendant or 

otherwise expressly consented to Defendant’s phone calls. 1

16.Plaintiff answered no less than 4 calls from Defendant, and in each answered 

call, informed Defendant that she does not owe any debts stemming from her 

residence in Gainesville, Florida, and demanded that Defendant cease its calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone immediately. 

17.Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s numerous requests that Defendant’s collection 

calls cease, Defendant placed or caused to be placed an average of 3 phone calls per 

week between late 2018 through the present day in an attempt to collect on an alleged 

debt she fully satisfied with the Retreat at Magnolia Parke. 

18.Plaintiff’s demands that Defendant’s phone calls cease fell on deaf ears and 

Defendant continued its phone harassment campaign. 

19.In total, Defendant placed or caused to be placed numerous harassing phone 

calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from late 2018 through the present day. 

20.In the calls that Plaintiff did answer, Plaintiff was greeted by a noticeable 

period of “dead air” while Defendant’s automated telephone system attempted to 

connect Plaintiff to a live agent. 

                                                            

1

 Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number through a method known as 

“skip-tracing,” whereby debt collectors obtain phone numbers by conducting inquiries upon consumer credit reports 

or other public record searches. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 14
5 

21.Specifically, there would be an approximate 2 second pause between the time 

Plaintiff said “hello,” and the time that a live agent introduced them self as a 

representative of Defendant. 

22.Moreover, Plaintiff also hears what sounds to be call center noise in the 

background of Defendant’s calls. 

23.Upon information and belief, Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system, a telephone dialing system 

that is commonly used in the debt collection industry to collect defaulted debts. 

DAMAGES

24.Defendant’s harassing phone calls have severely disrupted Plaintiff’s daily 

life and general well-being. 

25.Defendant’s phone harassment campaign and illegal collection activities have 

caused Plaintiff actual harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy, 

nuisance, intrusion upon and occupation of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone capacity, 

wasting Plaintiff’s time, the increased risk of personal injury resulting from the 

distraction caused by the incessant phone calls, aggravation that accompanies 

unsolicited telephone calls, emotional distress, mental anguish, anxiety, loss of 

concentration, diminished value and utility of telephone equipment and telephone 

subscription services, the loss of battery charge, and the per-kilowatt electricity costs 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 14
6 

required to recharge her cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of her 

telephone services. 

26.In addition, each time Defendant placed a telephone call to Plaintiff, 

Defendant occupied Plaintiff’s telephone number such that Plaintiff was unable to 

receive other phone calls. 

27.Concerned about the violations of her rights and invasion of her privacy, 

Plaintiff was forced to seek the assistance of counsel to file this action to compel 

Defendant to cease its unlawful conduct. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

28.Defendant repeatedly placed or caused to be placed non-emergency calls, 

including but not limited to the calls referenced above, to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) without 

Plaintiff’s prior consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). 

29.The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity...to store or 

produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number 

generator; and to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1). 

30.Upon information and belief, based on the lack of prompt human response 

during the phone calls in which Plaintiff answered, Defendant used an ATDS to 

place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 14
7 

31.Upon information and belief, the ATDS employed by Defendant transfers the 

call to a live agent once a human voice is detected, thus resulting in a pause after the 

called party speaks into the phone. 

32.Plaintiff does not have any business relationship with Defendant nor has she 

given it permission to call her cellular phone. Defendant was calling Plaintiff’s 

cellular phone attempting to collect an alleged debt that was fully satisfied. As such, 

she could not have given Defendant consent to contact her on her cellular telephone. 

33.Defendant violated the TCPA by placing numerous phone calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone from late 2018 through the present day, using an ATDS without 

her prior consent. 

34.Any prior consent, if any, was revoked by Plaintiff’s numerous verbal 

revocations. 

35.As pled above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s collection calls 

to her cellular phone. 

36.Upon information and belief, Defendant has no system in place to document 

and archive whether it has consent to contact consumers on their cellular phones. 

37.Upon information and belief, Defendant knew its collection practices were in 

violation of the TCPA, yet continued to employ them to increase profits at Plaintiff’s 

expense. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 14
8 

38.The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff were regarding business activities 

and not for emergency purposes as defined by the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b)(1)(A)(i). 

39.Defendant, through its agents, representatives, vendors, third-party 

contractors, subsidiaries, and/or employees acting within the scope of their authority 

acted intentionally in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

40.Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for a 

minimum of $500 per call. Moreover, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C), 

Defendant’s willful and knowing violations of the TCPA should trigger this 

Honorable Court’s ability to triple the damages to which Plaintiff is otherwise 

entitled to under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JULIE ANN SMITH, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor as follows: 

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 

the aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff damages of at least $500.00 per phone call and treble 

damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(3)(B)&(C); 

c. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff; and 

d. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and 

appropriate. 

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 8 of 14
9 

41.Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by FDCPA §1692a(3). 

42.Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by §1692a(6) because its primary 

business is the collection of delinquent debts and it regularly collects debts and uses 

the mail and/or the telephones to collect delinquent accounts allegedly owed to a 

third party. 

43.Moreover, Defendant is a “debt collector” because it acquired rights to the 

debt after it was allegedly in default. 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

44.The debt in which Defendant attempting to collect upon is a “debt” as defined 

by FDCPA §1692a(5) as it arises out of a transaction due or asserted to be owed or 

due to another for personal, family, or household purposes. 

45.Defendant used the phone to attempt to collect the debt and, as such, engaged 

in “communications” as defined in FDCPA §1692a(2). 

46.Defendant’s communications to Plaintiff were made in connection with the 

collection of the debt. 

47.Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692c(a)(1), c(b), d, d(5), e, e(10), f, and f(1) 

through its unlawful debt collection practices on a debt that never belonged to 

Plaintiff. 

a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692c 

48.Defendant violated §1692c(a)(1) and c(b) when it continuously called 

Plaintiff after being notified to stop on no less than 4 separate occasions. This 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 9 of 14
10 

repeated behavior of continuously and systematically calling Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone over and over after she demanded that it cease contacting her was harassing 

and abusive. Even after being told to stop contacting her, Defendant continued its 

onslaught of phone calls with the specific goal of oppressing and abusing Plaintiff 

into paying a debt that she did not legally owe as it was fully satisfied. 

49.Furthermore, Defendant has relentlessly called Plaintiff on numerous 

occasions in the course of less than 6 months. This volume of calls shows that 

Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiff’s pleas with the goal of annoying and harassing 

her into submission. 

50.Defendant was repeatedly notified by Plaintiff that she satisfied the alleged 

debt and that its calls were not welcomed. As such, Defendant knew that its conduct 

was inconvenient, unwanted, and distressing to her. 

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692d 

51.Defendant violated §1692d by engaging in abusive, harassing, and oppressive 

conduct by relentlessly calling Plaintiff’s cellular phone seeking immediate payment 

on an alleged debt that was previously fully satisfied. Moreover, Defendant 

continued placing the relentless calls after Plaintiff put Defendant on notice that she 

paid the alleged debt and demanded that the calls cease on no less than 4 separate 

occasions. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 10 of 14
11 

52.Defendant violated §1692d(5) by causing Plaintiff’s cellular phone to ring 

repeatedly and continuously in an attempt to engage Plaintiff in conversations 

regarding the collection of a debt not owed by Plaintiff with the intent to annoy, 

abuse, or harass Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant placed or caused to be placed 

frequent harassing phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from late 2018 

through the present day, using an ATDS without her prior consent. 

c. Violations of FDCPA § 1692e 

53.Defendant violated §1692e and e(10) when it used deceptive means to collect 

and/or attempt to collect on the alleged debt after it was fully satisfied. Defendant 

repeatedly contacted Plaintiff seeking to collect upon a debt that was already paid. 

Even after being apprised of its unlawful acts, Defendant continued its harassing 

behavior by calling Plaintiff numerous times in a deceptive attempt to force her to 

answer its calls and ultimately make a duplicate payment, despite the alleged debt 

being previously fully satisfied. Through its conduct, Defendant misleadingly 

represented to Plaintiff that it had the legal ability to contact her via an automated 

system when it never had consent to do so in the first place. 

54.As an experienced debt collector, Defendant knew or should have known the 

ramifications of collecting on a debt through incessant harassing phone calls to the 

cellular phones of consumers that do not legally owe such debt. 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 11 of 14
12 

55.Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically attempts to collect 

debts through harassing conduct and has no procedures in place to assure compliance 

with the FDCPA. 

56.As stated above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JULIE ANN SMITH, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court: 

a. Declare that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 

the aforementioned statute; 

b. Award Plaintiff statutory and actual damages, in an amount to be 

determined at trial, for the underlying FDCPA violations; 

c. Award Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 

U.S.C. §1692k; and 

d. Award any other relief as the Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT

57.At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff, was and is a natural person, 

and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by Florida Statutes § 559.55(8). 

58.At all times relevant to this action, Defendant is subject to and must abide by 

the laws of the State of Florida, including Florida Statute § 559.72. 

59.At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant was and is a “person” as 

said term in defined under Florida Statute § 1.01(3) and is subject to the provisions 

of Florida Statute § 559.27 because said section applies to “any person” who collects 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 12 of 14
13 

or attempts to collect a consumer debt as defined in Florida Statute § 559.72 because 

said provision applies to “any person” who collects or attempts to collect a consumer 

debt as defined in Florida Statute § 559.51(1). 

60.At all times material hereto, the debt in question was a “consumer debt” as 

said term is defined under Florida Statute §559.55(6). 

61.Defendant violated section 559.72(7) of the FCCPA through its unlawful 

conduct. 

a. Violations of FCCPA § 559.72(7) 

62. A person violates section 559.72(7) of the FCCPA when it willfully 

communicates with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such 

frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or 

willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or 

harass the debtor or any member or her or his family. 

63.Defendant violated section 559.72(7) of the FCCPA when it placed repeated 

harassing telephone calls to Plaintiff after Plaintiff informed Defendant calls were 

not welcomed as Defendant was calling to collect an alleged debt that was previously 

fully satisfied. Ignoring Plaintiff’s requests to cease calling, Defendant continued to 

place numerous phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JULIE ANN SMITH, requests that this Honorable Court: 

a. Enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant; 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 13 of 14
14 

b. Award Plaintiff her actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial 

pursuant to the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 

§559.77; 

c. Aware Plaintiff statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to the Florida 

Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.77; 

d. Award Plaintiff an equitable relief, including enjoining Defendant from 

further violations, pursuant to Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. §559.77(2); 

e. Award Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the 

Florida Consumer Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §559.77; and 

f. Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems equitable and just. 

Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

Dated: June 15, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1013947 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 South Highland Ave. Suite 200 

Lombard, IL 60148 

Telephone: (630) 575-8181 

ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case 1:20-cv-00141-RH-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/15/20 Page 14 of 14