1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jose Flores

 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, Jose Flores, (“Jose”), is a natural person who resided in Los Angeles, California, 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, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

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-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

never provided express consent to AA to be contacted on his 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 Jose 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. Jose 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 Jose on his 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 contacted Jose on Jose’s cellular phone in connection with the 

collection of the debt.

15. During this communication, Jose requested AA cease further calls to Jose.

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

collection of the debt on more than one occasion, most recently around April 2014.

17. Jose repeatedly requested AA cease further calls to Jose.

18. AA attempted to collect a debt from Jose.

19. AA violated the FDCPA and the TCPA.

Case 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/09/14 Page 2 of 4
3

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

21. 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

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

23. 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

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

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

debt.

COUNT FOUR

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

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

27. 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.

Case 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/09/14 Page 3 of 4
4

JURY DEMAND

28. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

29. Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

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

Fax: 312-361-3509

jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Ohio Bar No. 0079315

Date: October 9, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-13905-GAD-PJK ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/09/14 Page 4 of 4