1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Elizabeth Vignone

 Plaintiff,

v.

Asset Acceptance, LLC

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

UNDER THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT, THE TELEPHONE 

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND 

OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREIN

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Elizabeth Vignone, (“Elizabeth”), is a natural person who resided in The Villages, 

Florida, at all times relevant to this action.

2. Defendant, Asset Acceptance, LLC, (“AA”) is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that 

maintained its principal place of business in Warren, Michigan, at all times relevant to this 

action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter as it 

arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), venue is proper because Defendant resides in this judicial 

district.

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 5
2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. AA uses a predictive dialer system. 

6. Before AA began contacting Elizabeth, it and Elizabeth had no prior business relationship 

and Elizabeth had never provided express consent to AA to be contacted on her cellular 

telephone.

7. AA regularly uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails to collect consumer 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

8. The principal source of AA’s revenue is debt collection.

9. AA is a "debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).

10. As described, infra, AA contacted Elizabeth to collect a debt that was incurred primarily for 

personal, family, or household purposes.

11. This alleged obligation is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).

12. Elizabeth is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).

13. On several occasions, the dates of which will be discovered through discovery, AA willingly 

and knowingly used an automatic telephone dialing system to call Elizabeth on her cellular 

phone multiple times in violation of the TCPA. See Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, 

Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65603, *10 (S.D. Fla. 2013); See also Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs., 

LLC, 727 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2013).

14. A few years ago, AA began contacting Elizabeth on Elizabeth’s cellular phone in connection 

with the collection of a debt.

15. A few years ago, Elizabeth told AA the debt was paid and Elizabeth requested AA cease 

further calls to Elizabeth.

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 5
3

16. Despite this request, AA contacted Elizabeth, on more than one occasion, on Elizabeth’s 

cellular phone in connection with the collection of the debt, most recently around January 

2014.

17. Elizabeth repeatedly requested AA cease further calls to Elizabeth.

18. AA attempted to collect a debt from Elizabeth.

19. AA violated the FDCPA and TCPA.

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

20. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein.

21. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(1) by calling Plaintiff at a time or place known to be 

inconvenient for Plaintiff.

COUNT TWO

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

22. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein.

23. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d by engaging in conduct the natural consequence of 

which is to harass, oppress, or abuse Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the debt.

COUNT THREE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

24. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein.

25. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect the 

debt.

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 07/08/14 Page 3 of 5
4

COUNT FOUR

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

26. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein.

27. Defendant willingly and knowingly violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) on multiple and 

separate occasions by each time calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using both an automatic 

telephone dialing system without Plaintiff’s prior express consent.

JURY DEMAND

28. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

29. Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a. Judgment against Defendant for actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k.

b. An order enjoining Defendant from placing further telephone calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

c. Judgment against Defendant for statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3) for each and every call Defendant made in violation of the TCPA. 

d. For such other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 07/08/14 Page 4 of 5
5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Hyslip

 Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq.

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC LPA

 917 W. 18th St., Suite 200

 Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: 312-380-6110

 Email: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Ohio Bar # 0079315

Date: July 8, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-12667-DPH-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 07/08/14 Page 5 of 5