IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Myron Cole, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Delbert Services Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

 For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Myron Cole, by undersigned counsel, states as follows: 

JURISDICTION

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

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), and the invasions of Plaintiff’s 

personal privacy by the Defendant and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer 

debt. 

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, Myron Cole (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in Warren, 

Michigan, and is a “consumer” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

4. Defendant Delbert Services Corporation (“Delbert”), is a Nevada business entity 

with an address of 7125 Pollock Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119, operating as a collection 

agency, and is a “debt collector” as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

Case 2:14-cv-13603-LJM-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 09/17/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 4
5. Delbert at all times acted by and through one or more of the collectors. 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

A. The Debt

6. The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation (the “Debt”) to an original 

creditor (the “Creditor”). 

7. The Debt arose from services provided by the Creditor which were primarily for 

family, personal or household purposes and which meets the definition of a “debt” under 

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

8. The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Delbert for collection, or 

Delbert was employed by the Creditor to collect the Debt. 

9. The Defendant attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in 

“communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). 

B. Delbert Engages in Harassment and Abusive Tactics

10. Within the last year, Delbert contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Debt. 

11. In the course of a number of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, Delbert 

failed to advise Plaintiff that the call was in an attempt to collect the Debt. 

12. Furthermore, in or around March 2014, Delbert threatened to take a legal action 

against Plaintiff if the Debt was not paid immediately. 

13. To date, the Debt was not paid and no legal action has been filed as threatened. 

C. Plaintiff Suffered Actual Damages

14. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a result of the 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

Case 2:14-cv-13603-LJM-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 09/17/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 4
15. As a direct consequence of the Defendant’s acts, practices and conduct, the 

Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration 

and embarrassment. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

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

Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

17. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d in that Defendant engaged 

in behavior the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse the Plaintiff in 

connection with the collection of a debt. 

18. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e in that Defendant used false, 

deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. 

19. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) in that Defendant 

threatened to take legal action, without actually intending to do so. 

20. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) in that Defendant 

employed false and deceptive means to collect a debt. 

21. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) in that Defendant failed 

to inform the consumer that the communication was an attempt to collect a debt. 

22. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f in that Defendant used 

unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. 

23. The foregoing acts and omissions of the Defendant constitute numerous and 

multiple violations of the FDCPA, including every one of the above-cited provisions. 

24. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s violations. 

Case 2:14-cv-13603-LJM-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 09/17/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

1. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against Defendant; 

2. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A) 

against Defendant; 

3. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant; 

4. Punitive damages against Defendant; and 

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

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: September 17, 2014 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Myron Cole 

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-13603-LJM-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 09/17/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 4