IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Stacie Chism, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ITT Educational Services, Inc. d/b/a ITT 

Technical Institute, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

 For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Stacie Chism, 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, Stacie Chism (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in Detroit, 

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

4. Defendant ITT Educational Services, Inc. d/b/a ITT Technical Institute (“ITT 

Tech”) is an Indiana business entity with an address of 13000 North Meridian Street, Carmel, 

Indiana 46032, and is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

Case 2:14-cv-13574-PDB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 4
FACTS

5. In or around May 2014, ITT Tech started calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in 

an attempt to solicit its products and services to the Plaintiff. 

6. At all times mentioned herein, ITT Tech called Plaintiff using an automated 

telephone dialer system (“ATDS” or “predictive dialer”). 

7. When Plaintiff answered the ATDS calls, she experienced a brief period of 

silence only after which an ITT Tech live representative came on the line. 

8. Upon information and belief, ITT Tech obtains telephone numbers belonging to 

consumers who search the Internet to obtain information regarding employment and or higher 

education. 

9. Plaintiff has no prior business relationship with ITT Tech and never provided her 

consent to ITT Tech to be contacted by means of an automated system. 

10. Plaintiff answered a call from ITT Tech and stated she was not interested in their 

services as she was already enrolled in school and requested ITT Tech to stop calling her cellular 

telephone. 

11. Despite Plaintiff’s request to stop ATDS calls to her cellular telephone, ITT Tech 

continued to call. 

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. 

13. At all times mentioned herein and within the last year, Defendant called Plaintiff 

on her cellular telephone using an ATDS or predictive dialer. 

Case 2:14-cv-13574-PDB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 4
14. In expanding on the prohibitions of the TCPA, the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) defines a Predictive Dialer as “a dialing system that automatically dials 

consumers’ telephone numbers in a manner that “predicts” the time when a consumer will 

answer the phone and a [representative] will be available to take the call...”2003 TCPA Order, 

18 FCC 36 Rcd 14022. The FCC explains that if a representative is not “free to take a call that 

has been placed by a predictive dialer, the consumer answers the phone only to hear ‘dead air’ or 

a dial tone, causing frustration.” Id. In addition, the TCPA places prohibitions on companies that 

“abandon” calls by setting “the predictive dialers to ring for a very short period of time before 

disconnecting the call; in such cases, the predictive dialer does not record the call as having been 

abandoned.” Id. 

15. Defendant’s telephone systems have all the earmarks of a predictive dialer. 

Oftentimes when Defendant called Plaintiff, she was met with a period of silence before 

Defendant’s telephone system would connect her to a live person. 

16. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s predictive dialers have the capacity to 

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

17. Plaintiff did not provide and/or revoked her consent to be contacted on her 

cellular telephone. 

18. 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). 

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

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

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

TCPA. 

Case 2:14-cv-13574-PDB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 4
21. 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). 

22. 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 the Defendant: 

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

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A); 

2. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or knowing 

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

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

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: September 15, 2014 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Stacie Chism 

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-13574-PDB-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 4