1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Demetrius Gilliam, on behalf )

of himself and others similarly ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

situated, )

Plaintiff, )

) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

)

vs. )

)

Turning Point Solutions LLC, ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is proper before this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as

part of the acts and transactions giving rise to Demetrius Gilliam’s

(“Plaintiff”) action occurred in this district, Plaintiff resides in this district,

and Turning Point Solutions LLC (“Defendant”) transacts business in this 

district.

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 11
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in 

the State of Michigan, County of Macomb, and City of Roseville.

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

6. Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to pay a debt owed 

or due, or asserted to be owed or due a creditor other than Defendant.

7. Plaintiff’s obligation, or alleged obligation, owed or due, or 

asserted to be owed or due a creditor other than Defendant (the “Debt”) 

arises from a transaction in which, upon information and belief, the money, 

property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were 

incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

8. Defendant is a New York limited liability company with its 

principal offices located at 3221 Southwestern Blvd., Suite 120, Orchard 

Park, NY 14217. Defendant can be served through its registered agent, Sam 

Galbo, 2560 Walden Avenue, Suite 103, Cheektowaga, NY 14224.

9. Defendant is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, 

by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect the 

Debt from Plaintiff, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained the Debt 

when it was in default. 

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 11
3

11. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6).

12. Defendant uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the 

mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any 

debts, and/or regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due another.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. In connection with the collection of the Debt, on or about 

September 12, 2014, Defendant placed a call to Plaintiff’s telephone

number, and at such time, left the following voice message:

Demetrius, this is Jerome Bates calling with 

Turning Point Solutions in reference to this 

[unintelligible] group account here. Just need to 

touch base with you. Do need a return call here. 

(866) 380-1579. Your file number here is 812709. 

I do need to hear back from either yourself or your 

representing attorney by 3:00 pm eastern time 

today. Thank you and have a good day. 

14. Upon information and belief, and also in the year 2014, 

Defendant left at least three to four other voicemail messages for Plaintiff, 

including at least one in June 2014, in connection with the collection of the 

Debt. These messages contained substantially similar content to the 

voicemail message described in paragraph 13. 

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 11
4

15. Defendant’s voicemail messages failed to notify Plaintiff that 

the communications were from a debt collector, that Defendant was calling 

to collect a debt, or that any information obtained would be used for that 

purpose.

16. As a result, Defendant failed to meaningfully disclose its 

identity to Plaintiff.

17. Further, by not stating that it was a debt collector calling to 

collect a debt, and by telling Plaintiff that he or his attorney needed to make 

a return phone call back to Defendant by 3:00 p.m. that same day, when, in 

fact, there was no legitimate basis for setting such a deadline, Defendant 

communicated with Plaintiff in a manner that conveyed to Plaintiff a false 

sense of urgency.

18. Upon information and belief, it is Defendant’s practice to leave 

voicemail messages for consumers wherein it fails to meaningfully disclose 

its identity as required by the FDCPA, and to leave voicemail messages 

where it conveys a false sense of urgency to consumers.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

19. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of two Classes:

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 11
5

The Disclosure Class

All persons (1) located in Michigan, (2) for whom Defendant 

left, or caused to be left, a voice message, (3) in connection

with collection of a consumer debt, (4) within the year 

preceding this complaint, (5) where the caller failed to state that 

she/he was a debt collector and/or failed to state that she/he was 

calling to collect a debt and/or failed to state that any 

information obtained would be used for that purpose.

The False Urgency Class

All persons (1) located in Michigan, (2) for whom Defendant 

left, or caused to be left, a voice message, (3) in connection 

with collection of a consumer debt, (4) within the year 

preceding this complaint, (5) where the caller failed to state that 

she/he was a debt collector and failed to state that she/he was 

calling to collect a debt and (6) where the caller stated that 

she/he needed a return telephone call that same day.

Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, the officers and directors of the 

Company, members of their immediate families and their legal 

representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which 

Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

20. Upon information and belief, the proposed Classes are so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The exact number of 

class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be 

ascertained through appropriate discovery. The proposed Classes are

ascertainable in that the names and addresses of all members of the Classes

can be identified in business records maintained by Defendant. 

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 12/11/14 Page 5 of 11
6

21. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of 

the Classes because Plaintiff and all claims of the members of the Classes

originate from the same conduct, practice and procedure on the part of 

Defendant and Plaintiff has suffered the same injuries as each member of the 

Classes. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in class 

action litigation. 

22. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the 

fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all 

members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by 

individual members of the Classes may be relatively small, the expense and 

burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for the members of the 

Classes to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no 

difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.

23. Issues of law and fact common to the members of the Classes

predominate over any questions that may affect only individual members, in 

that Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire 

Classes. Among the issues of law and fact common to the Classes are:

a. Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA as alleged herein;

b. the existence of Defendant’s identical conduct particular to the 

matters at issue;

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 12/11/14 Page 6 of 11
7

c. the availability of statutory penalties; and

d. the availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(6)

24. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 – 23.

25. 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) provides: 

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person 

in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the 

general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a 

violation of this section:

* * *

(6) except as provided in 1692b of this title, the placement of 

telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller’s 

identity. 

26. Defendant’s voicemail messages failed to notify Plaintiff that 

the communication was from a debt collector, that Defendant was calling to 

collect a debt, or that any information obtained would be used for that 

purpose.

27. As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d(6) by not 

providing meaningful disclosure of its identity.

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 12/11/14 Page 7 of 11
8

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)

28. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 – 23. 

29. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10) 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:

* * *

(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.

30. Staff Commentary to the FDCPA by the Federal Trade 

Commission states that “[i]t is a violation to send any communication that 

conveys to the consumer a false sense of urgency.” 53 Fed. Reg. 50097-02 

(1988). 

31. Defendant failed to disclose to Plaintiff in its September 12, 

2014 voicemail that it was a debt collector calling to collect a debt. In that 

same message, Defendant also advised Plaintiff that he or his attorney 

needed to make a return phone call back to Defendant by 3:00 p.m. that 

same day, when, in fact, there was no legitimate basis for setting such a 

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 12/11/14 Page 8 of 11
9

deadline. As a result, Defendant communicated with Plaintiff in a manner 

that conveyed to Plaintiff a false sense of urgency.

32. As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10).

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11)

33. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in 

paragraphs 1 – 23. 

34. 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11) 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:

* * *

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication 

with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication 

with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, 

that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that 

any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the 

failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the 

communication is from a debt collector, except that this 

paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in 

connection with a legal action.

35. Defendant’s voicemail messages failed to notify Plaintiff that 

the communication was from a debt collector, that Defendant was calling to 

collect a debt, or that any information obtained would be used for that 

purpose.

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 12/11/14 Page 9 of 11
10

36. As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests for relief and 

judgment, as follows:

a. Determining that this action is a proper class action under 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

b. Adjudging and declaring that Defendant violated 15 

U.S.C. §1692d(6), 15 U.S.C. §1692e(10) and 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11); 

c. Awarding Plaintiff and members of the Class statutory 

damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k; 

d. Awarding Plaintiff and members of the Class their 

reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, including expert 

fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k;

e. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class any pre-judgment and 

post-judgment interest as may be allowed under the law; and

f. Awarding other and further relief as the Court may deem 

just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury.

December 11, 2014. /s/ Michael L. Greenwald

MICHAEL L. GREENWALD

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 12/11/14 Page 10 of 11
11

GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC

5550 Glades Road, Suite 500

Boca Raton, FL 33431

Telephone: 561.826.5477

Fax: 561.961.5684

mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed 

Class 

RONALD S. WEISS

7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600

West Bloomfield, MI 48322

RWeiss@MichiganLemonLaw.com

(248) 737-8000 

(248) 737-8003 Fax 

 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the 

 Proposed Class

Case 5:14-cv-14685-JCO-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 12/11/14 Page 11 of 11