1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Brenda Clayton

 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, Brenda Clayton, (“Brenda”), is a natural person who resided in Winter Springs, 

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. and 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, U.S.C. §1367(a).

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

district.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. AA uses a predictive dialer system.

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Brenda 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 Brenda 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. Brenda 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 Brenda 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. Around March 2014, AA began contacting Brenda on Brenda’s cellular phone in connection 

with the collection of the debt.

15. During one communication, around March 2014, Brenda requested AA cease further calls to 

Brenda.

16. Despite this request, AA contacted Brenda on Brenda’s cellular phone in connection with the 

collection of the debt on numerous occasions, most recently around May 2014.

17. During one communication, AA threatened to garnish Brenda’s wages if Brenda didn’t pay 

the debt.

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/23/14 Page 2 of 5
3

18. AA has not garnished Brenda’s wages.

19. AA never intended to garnish Brenda’s wages.

20. Around March 2014, AA contacted Brenda at Brenda’s place of employment on the main 

line in connection with the collection of the debt.

21. During this communication, Brenda requested AA cease further calls to Brenda at Brenda’s 

place of employment.

22. Despite this request, AA contacted Brenda at Brenda’s place of employment in connection 

with the collection of the debt on numerous occasions, most recently around May 2014.

23. AA caused Brenda to lose focus at work.

24. On more than one occasion, Brenda’s co-workers overheard AA’s calls, which embarrassed 

Brenda.

25. Brenda repeatedly requested AA cease further calls to Brenda.

26. AA caused Brenda emotional distress.

27. AA attempted to collect a debt from Brenda.

28. AA violated the FDCPA and the TCPA.

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

30. 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

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

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/23/14 Page 3 of 5
4

32. 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

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

34. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations 

or means in connection with the collection of the debt. 

COUNT FOUR

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

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

debt.

COUNT FIVE

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

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

38. 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

39. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

40. Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/23/14 Page 4 of 5
5

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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Hyslip

Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq.

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA

1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: 312-380-6110

Email: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Ohio Bar # 0079315

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Date: September 23, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-13674-DPH-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/23/14 Page 5 of 5