IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Hope Varela, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Credit Acceptance Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

 For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Hope Varela, 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. (“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, Hope Varela (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in 

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

4. Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”), is a Michigan business entity 

with an address of 25505 West 12 Mile Road, Southfield, Michigan 48034, and is a “person” as 

the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. CAC at all times acted by and through one or more of the agents. 

Case 2:15-cv-10205-PDB-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 01/20/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 4
FACTS

6. Within the last year, CAC contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect consumer 

debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. 

7. At all times mentioned herein, CAC called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, number 

505-xxx-1967, by using an automated telephone dialer system (“ATDS”) and an artificial or 

prerecorded voice. 

8. When Plaintiff answered calls from CAC, she was either met with a prerecorded 

message stating to please hold, or she was met with a period of silence before the call was 

disconnected. 

9. Plaintiff never provided her cellular telephone number to CAC and never 

provided her consent to be contacted on her cellular telephone number. 

10. Furthermore, during a live conversation with CAC, Plaintiff requested that all 

communication to her cellular telephone number cease. 

11. Despite the foregoing, CAC continued to call Plaintiff on her cellular telephone at 

an annoying and harassing rate. 

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, CAC called Plaintiff on her 

cellular telephones using an ATDS or predictive dialer and a prerecorded or artificial voice. 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-10205-PDB-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 01/20/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 4
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. CAC’s telephone systems have some earmarks of a Predictive Dialer. 

16. Often times when Plaintiff answered the phone, she was met with a period of 

silence before CAC’s telephone system would disconnect the call. 

17. CAC’s Predictive Dialers have the capacity to store or produce telephone 

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

18. CAC called Plaintiff by means of automatic telephone calls to her cellular phone 

knowing that it lacked consent to call her number. As such, each call placed to Plaintiff was 

made in knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA, and subject to treble damages pursuant to 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). 

19. The telephone number called by CAC was assigned to a cellular telephone service 

for which Plaintiff incurs charges for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

20. The calls from CAC to Plaintiff were not placed for “emergency purposes” as 

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

21. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each call 

made in negligent violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

Case 2:15-cv-10205-PDB-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 01/20/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 4
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 Defendant: 

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

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

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

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

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

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: January 20, 2015 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Hope Varela 

LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 

 1100 Summer Street 

Stamford, CT 06905 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (888) 953-6237 

Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com 

Case 2:15-cv-10205-PDB-EAS ECF No. 1 filed 01/20/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 4