IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE DESROSIERS, 

individually and on behalf 

of similarly situated individuals, 

Case No. 14-13704

Plaintiff,

v.

CLASS ACTION

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC,

JURY DEMANDED

Defendant.

____________________________________/

Curtis C. Warner (P59915)

WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 

350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300

Park Ridge, IL 60068

(847) 701-5290 (TEL)

cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

John A. Evanchek (P66157)

KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC

43695 Michigan Ave.

Canton, MI 48188

(734) 397-4540

john@kelawpc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

___________________________________/

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Andre Desrosiers, (“Plaintiff”), brings this action individually and on 

behalf of a class of similarly situated persons against Defendant Asset Acceptance LLC (“Asset 

Acceptance”).

2. On January 31, 2012, Asset Acceptance entered into a Consent Decree in the 

matter, United States of America v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182-T27EAJ, Doc. 5, 

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 11
2

Consent Decree (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), (the “Consent Decree”), in which Asset Acceptance

specifically agreed under certain conditions when collecting a debt to state in the collection letter, 

“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will 

not sue you for it.”

3. Despite Asset Acceptance entering into the Consent Decree, Asset Acceptance 

continued its practice of attempting to collect time barred debts without including the quoted 

language in the Consent Decree in its form collection letters.

4. Asset Acceptance violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in 

impermissibly attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was barred by the Michigan six (6) 

year statute of limitations in sending him a Settlement Offer a 95% Discount off the debt. 

(Exhibit A). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question), 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k (FDCPA).

6. Venue and personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this District is proper because:

a. Plaintiff resides in the District; and

b. Asset Acceptance’s principal office is located at 28405 Van Dyke Ave., 

Warren, Michigan; and

c. Asset Acceptance used P.O. Box 2036, Warren, MI 48090-2036, as the return 

address in the subject letter.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides within Wayne County, Michigan.

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 11
3

8. Asset Acceptance, LLC is a limited liability company chartered under Delaware 

law. Asset Acceptance’s registered agent in the State of Michigan is CSC-Lawyers Incorporating 

Service (Company), 601 Abbot Road, East Lansing, MI 48823. 

9. Asset Acceptance is a debt collector under the FDCPA in that it attempts to 

collect debts purchased from original creditors that are in default. See McDonald v. Asset 

Acceptance, LLC, 296 F.R.D. 513 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (fining class wide liability under the 

FDCPA against Asset Acceptance); see also Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Robinson, 244 Mich. 

App. 728, 734 (Mich. App. 2001).

FACTS

10. Plaintiff incurred a debt for personal, family or household purposes, fell upon 

hard times and subsequently defaulted on his obligations.

11. On information and belief, Asset Acceptance purchased Plaintiff’s debt in a 

portfolio of similar debts at pennies on the dollar. 

12. Asset Acceptance attempted to collect the debt Plaintiff was in default on.

13. As part of Asset Acceptance’s attempt to collect a debt from Plaintiff, Asset 

Acceptance sent, or caused to be sent, a letter dated March 1, 2014, (Defendant’s “letter”), of 

which a redacted copy of the front of the letter which is as follows:

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 11
4

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/24/14 Page 4 of 11
5

14. The back of Defendant’s Letter is as follows:

15. Defendant’s letter offers a “95% DISCOUNT” off the “current balance” of the 

debt and notes that “the Current Balance was calculated on 02/18/2014 and may vary due to 

payments and/or accrual of interest after that date.”

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/24/14 Page 5 of 11
6

16. An unsophisticated consumer reading a letter in the form of Defendant’s letter

could have been lead to believe that their debt was legally enforceable. 

17. Plaintiff at or around the time he received the collection letter was trying to clear 

up his credit as he was doing financially better.

18. Plaintiff initially was going to pay Asset Acceptance the debt in Defendant’s letter, 

but for advice of counsel decided not to make a payment on it.

19. The debt reflected in Defendant’s letter has been in default for more than six years.

20. Asset Acceptance knew that the debt reflected in Defendant’s letter was time 

barred.

21. Asset Acceptance should have known the debt reflected in Defendant’s letter was 

time barred.

22. The debt referenced in Defendant’s letter is not listed on Experian’s consumer 

report regarding Plaintiff.

23. According to Experian, on January 4, 2013, Asset Acceptance made an inquiry 

into Plaintiff’s credit history.

24. Charged off credit card accounts typically remain on a person’s consumer report 

for approximately seven years. 

25. It is unlikely that Asset Acceptance lacked any knowledge of the age of Plaintiff’s 

debt in Defendant’s letter it sought to collect. 

26. Plaintiff disputed the validity of the debt in Defendant’s letter and in response 

Asset Acceptance closed the account and stated that the balance of the debt was zero. 

27. Asset Acceptance entered into a Consent Decree in the matter, United States of 

America v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182-T27EAJ, Doc. 5, Consent Decree (M.D. Fla. 

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/24/14 Page 6 of 11
7

Jan. 31, 2012), in which it specifically agreed under certain conditions when collecting a debt to 

state in the collection letter, “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the 

age of your debt, we will not sue you for it.”

28. Defendant’s letter fails to contain the language Asset Acceptance agreed to in its 

Consent Decree. 

29. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has found that nondisclosure of the fact 

that a debt is time-barred might deceive a consumer in at least two ways: first, because most 

consumers do not know or understand their legal rights with respect to the collection of timebarred debt, attempts to collect on such debt may create a misleading impression that the 

consumer has no defense to a lawsuit; and second, consumers often do not know that in many 

states the making of a partial payment on a stale debt actually revives the entire debt even if it 

was otherwise time-barred. 

30. Given the potential for confusion, and to avoid creating a misleading impression, 

the FTC recommended that if a collector knows or should know that it is collecting on a timebarred debt, it must inform the consumer that (1) the collector cannot sue to collect the debt, and 

(2) providing partial payment would revive the collector's ability to sue to collect the remaining 

balance. 

31. Most consumers do not understand their legal rights with respect to time-barred 

debts. 

32. The use of the phrase “Settlement Offer” to the unsophisticated consumer is a 

phrase used in a civil lawsuit to describe a communication from one party to the other suggesting 

a settlement – an agreement to end the lawsuit before a judgment is rendered.

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/24/14 Page 7 of 11
8

COUNT I 

33. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-32 above herein.

34. 15 U.S.C § 1692e, in pertinent part, provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without 

limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a 

violation of this section:

* * *

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. . . .

* * *

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or

that is not intended to be taken. . . .

* * *

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

35. 15 U.S.C § 1692f provides in part that, “A debt collector may not use unfair or 

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

36. Michigan’s statute of limitations applicable to the debt in Defendant’s letter is 6 

years. 

37. Asset Acceptance attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was barred by the 

Michigan Statute of Limitations.

38. Defendant’s letter violates 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 e(2)(A),(5),(10), and 1692f. 

CLASS ALLEGATION

39. The class consists of: All individuals who were sent a letter, and the letter was 

not returned, in the form of Defendant’s letter sent to Plaintiff making a Settlement Offer with a 

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/24/14 Page 8 of 11
9

95% discount without containing the language in the Consent Decree, “The law limits how long 

you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it”, at any 

time between one year prior to the filing of this lawsuit and 20 days thereafter, where the debt 

was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

40. The subclass consists of: All individuals with a Michigan address who were sent a 

letter, and the letter was not returned, in the form of Defendant’s letter sent to Plaintiff making a 

Settlement Offer with a 95% discount without containing the language in the Consent Decree, 

“The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will 

not sue you for it”, at any time between one year prior to the filing of this lawsuit and 20 days 

thereafter, where the debt was time barred by the Michigan six-year statute of limitations.

41. On information and belief, the class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impractical. 

42. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of 

the class and subclass defined above.

43. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and subclass that 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. 

44. The predominant common question is whether Asset Acceptance violated the 

FDCPA when it attempt to collect a time barred debt and did not inform the debtor that, “The 

law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue 

you for it.”

45. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class and subclass. 

46. Plaintiff has retained Curtis C. Warner who is counsel experienced in handling 

class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices. 

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/24/14 Page 9 of 11
10

47. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, the 

class and subclass and against Asset Acceptance for, statutory damages, actual damages, 

attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Curtis C. Warner

 Curtis C. Warner 

Curtis C. Warner (P59915)

WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 

350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300

Park Ridge, IL 60068

(847) 701-5290 (TEL)

cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

John A. Evanchek (P66157)

KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC

43695 Michigan Ave.

Canton, MI 48188

(734) 397-4540

john@kelawpc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Curtis C. Warner

 Curtis C. Warner 

Curtis C. Warner (P59915)

WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 

350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300

Park Ridge, IL 60068

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 09/24/14 Page 10 of 11
11

(847) 701-5290 (TEL)

cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

John A. Evanchek (P66157)

KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC

43695 Michigan Ave.

Canton, MI 48188

(734) 397-4540

john@kelawpc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 2:14-cv-13704-GCS-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 09/24/14 Page 11 of 11