1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

TRACY BENNER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., 

 Defendant. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05937 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT 

 NOW comes TRACY BENNER (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, 

complaining as to the conduct of MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. (“Defendant”), as 

follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”) under 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. for Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the FDCPA. Subject matter jurisdiction 

is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C §1692, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the action arises 

under the laws of the United States. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Defendant conducts business 

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

the claims occurred within the Northern District of Florida.

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a consumer over 18 years-of-age residing in Escambia County, Florida, which 

is located within the Northern District of Florida. 

5. As reflected on its website, Defendant is a self-proclaimed debt collector.1

 Defendant is a 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kansas, with its principal place of business is 

located at 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 1300, San Diego, California. 

6. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, 

successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives and insurers at all 

times relevant to the instant action. 

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

7. The instant action stems from Defendant’s attempts to collect upon a defaulted credit card 

debt (“subject debt”) that Plaintiff purportedly owes to CitiBank, N.A. (“CitiBank”). 

8. Plaintiff used the CitiBank credit card to make purchases for his personal and family use. 

9. Upon information and belief, after Plaintiff’s purported default on the subject debt in the 

amount of $1,195.13, the subject debt was charged off by CitiBank and turned over to Defendant 

for collection purposes. 

10. On or around August 26, 2020, Defendant mailed or caused to be mailed a collection letter 

to Plaintiff. 

11. Defendant’s August 26th collection letter was enclosed in an envelope that prominently 

displayed the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” on its exterior in bold font. 

12. When Plaintiff observed the TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT envelope, his attention 

was immediately drawn to the formatting of the words TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT. 

 

1

 https://www.midlandcreditonline.com/who-is-mcm/ 

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

13. Reading the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” caused Plaintiff to worry about 

the contents of the unknown letter, as Plaintiff was unsure as to what time sensitive matters of his 

would be properly subject to communications via mail. Plaintiff immediately grew nervous and 

anxious to learn the contents of the letter. 

14. The envelope’s inclusion of the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” on the 

exterior created a false sense of urgency for Plaintiff who was unable to address the subject debt, 

in turn creating unnecessary distress in Plaintiff. 

15. As a result of the TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT disclosure on the envelope, Plaintiff 

immediately opened the collection letter to determine what time sensitive information was 

contained within the letter. 

16. Plaintiff was worried, anxious, and nervous to figure out what time sensitive information 

he was receiving from a completely unknown sender. 

17. Upon opening the collection letter, Plaintiff read the words “PRE-LEGAL 

NOTIFICATION” followed by the account details and Defendant seeking payment of the subject 

debt in the amount of $1,195.13. 

18. Subsequently, Defendant’s letter included a statement threatening with legal action if 

payment isn’t received from Plaintiff by September 25, 2020. 

19. As a result of Defendant’s harassing collection letter containing threats of legal action 

caused Plaintiff to worry and created unnecessary distress as to avoiding any kind of legal action. 

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant routinely sends collection letters inside of 

envelopes marked TIME SENSITVE DOCUMENT in an attempt to cause the unsophisticated 

consumers to open the envelopes, read the enclosed letter, and call Defendant about the debt. 

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

21. Defendant has determined that it collects more money from consumers when it sends 

letters in “TIME SENSITVE DOCUMENT” envelopes. 

22. Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, including but not 

limited to confusion and aggravation. 

23. Plaintiff has further been unnecessarily confused and concerned given Defendant’s 

violations of law, and has further suffered a violation of his state and federally protected interests 

as a result of Defendant’s conduct. 

24. In an effort to address the confusion created by Defendant, Plaintiff lost time and resources 

going about addressing Respondent’s conduct. 

25. Plaintiff was further subjected to deceptive and misleading conduct by Defendant which 

materially impacted and shaped his reaction and course of conduct in response to Defendant’s 

collection efforts. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully set forth herein. 

27. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) of the FDCPA. 

28. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by §1692a(6) of the FDCPA, because it regularly 

uses the mail and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer accounts. 

29. Defendant is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect, directly or 

indirectly, defaulted debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to others, and debt collection 

is the primary purpose of its business. 

30. The subject debt 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. 

a. Violations of the FDCPA § 1692e 

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

31. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, prohibits a debt collector from using “any 

false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt.”

32. In addition, this section enumerates specific violations, such as: 

“The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a 

consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10). 

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

attempt to collect the subject debt by threatening to take legal action and only giving Plaintiff until 

a specific date for payment. Specifically, it was deceptive for Defendant to implicitly represent 

that it could include the words “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” printed on an envelope dated 

August 26, 2020, containing a collection letter. The FDCPA specifically prohibits debt collectors 

from including this type of language on its envelopes, thus Defendant acted deceptively by 

including it in clear violation of the FDCPA. Defendant’s actions only served to worry and confuse 

Plaintiff and were done in a deceptive and misleading attempt to compel Plaintiff to address the 

subject debt with Defendant. 

b. Violations of the FDCPA § 1692f 

34. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, prohibits a debt collector from using “unfair 

or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” 

35. In addition, this section enumerates specific violations, such as: 

“Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on 

any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or 

by telegram, except that a debt collector may use her business name if such 

name does not indicate that she is in the debt collection business.” 15 

U.S.C. §1692f(8). 

36. Defendant violated § 169f(8) when it unfairly attempted to collect upon the subject debt. 

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

Any reasonable fact finder will conclude that Defendant’s inclusion of “TIME SENSITIVE 

DOCUMENT” on the front of the envelope violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8). As alleged, Plaintiff 

instantly opened Defendant’s mail because it said “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT”. Upon 

information and belief, Defendant has determined that it collects more from consumers by 

including “TIME SENSITIVE DOCUMENT” on envelopes. On information and belief, 

Defendant’s research demonstrates that the least sophisticated consumer or the unsophisticated 

consumer is more likely to open letters sent in envelopes marked “TIME SENSITIVE 

DOCUMENT”. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TRACY BENNER, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

enter judgment in his favor as follows: 

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

aforementioned bodies of law; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages of $1,000.00 as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, as provided 

under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(3); and 

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

Dated: November 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

/s/Alejandro E. Figueroa 

 Alejandro E. Figueroa, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 1021163

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd 

 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 

 Lombard, IL 60148 

 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 Ext. 120 

 alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com 

 

Case 3:20-cv-05937-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 6