IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Jennifer Axtell, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

First Premier Bank, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

 For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Jennifer Axtell, by undersigned counsel, states as 

follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the Telephone 

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

2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the 

Defendant transacts business in this District and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to 

this action occurred in this District. 

PARTIES

3. The Plaintiff, Jennifer Axtell (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in 

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

4. Defendant First Premier Bank (“FPB”), is a South Dakota business entity with an 

address of 601 S. Minnesota Avenue, Siox Falls, South Dakota 57104-4824, and is a “person” as 

defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

Case 2:14-cv-13071-LJM-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 08/07/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 4
FACTS

5. In or around January of 2014, FPB started calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 

number 989-xxx-7119, in an attempt to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. 

6. At all times mentioned herein, FPB contacted Plaintiff using an automated 

telephone dialer system (“ATDS” or “predictive dialer”) and/or by using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice. 

7. When Plaintiff answered FPB’s calls, she heard a prerecorded message instructing 

Plaintiff to hold for the next available representative. 

8. During a live conversation in February of 2014, Plaintiff informed FPB that there 

was a payment arrangement in place and that Plaintiff was making agreed upon monthly 

payments, and as such, demanded that all calls to her cease immediately. 

9. Thereafter, despite having been so informed and directed to cease 

communications, FPB continued placing automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone on a 

daily basis. 

10. FPB originally had Plaintiff’s express consent to call her cellular telephone, 

however Plaintiff revoked her consent during the conversation in February of 2014. Accordingly, 

FPB no longer had Plaintiff’s consent to place automated calls to her cellular telephone. 

11. Nonetheless, FPB continued to place automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT – 

47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.

12. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

Case 2:14-cv-13071-LJM-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 08/07/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 4
13. At all times mentioned herein and within the last four years, Defendant called 

Plaintiff on her cellular telephone using an ATDS or predictive dialer and/or by using a 

prerecorded or artificial voice. 

14. Defendant continued to place automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone after 

being directed by Plaintiff to cease calling and knowing there was no consent to continue the 

calls. As such, each call placed to Plaintiff was made in knowing and/or willful violation of the 

TCPA, and subject to treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). 

15. The telephone number called by Defendant was assigned to a cellular telephone 

service for which Plaintiff incurs charges for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

16. The calls from Defendant to Plaintiff were not placed for “emergency purposes” 

as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i). 

17. Each of the aforementioned calls made by Defendant constitutes a violation of the 

TCPA. 

18. As a result of each call made in negligent violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each call placed in violation of the 

TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

19. As a result of each call made in knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA, 

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of treble damages in an amount up to $1,500.00 pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant: 

A. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each violation determined to be negligent 

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

Case 2:14-cv-13071-LJM-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 08/07/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 4
B. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or knowing 

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

C. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: August 7, 2014 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Jennifer Axtell 

LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 

 1100 Summer Street 

Stamford, CT 06905 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (888) 953-6237 

Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com 

Case 2:14-cv-13071-LJM-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 08/07/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 4