Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

COURT FILE NO.: CVDENNIE ROBERT DAVIS and 

KATHERINE DAVIS, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS 

LLC and JANE DOE, a/k/a MILA DEAN 

 Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

JURISDICTION 

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), 47 

U.S.C. 227(b) et seq., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for pendent state law claims. 

2. This action arises out of Defendants’ violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”); the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227 

et seq.; out of violations of the Michigan Occupation Code (“MOC”), MCL 339.901 et seq; or 

alternatively out of violations of the Michigan Regulation of Collections Practices Act 

(“MRCPA”) MCL 445.251 et seq; by these Defendants in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer 

debt. 

3. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions occurred here, Plaintiffs reside 

here, and Defendants transact business here. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, DENNIE ROBERT DAVIS, (hereinafter "DENNIE"), is disabled from a traumatic 

brain injury sustained in a car crash approximately 43 years ago and is a natural person who 

resides in the County of Genesee, State of Michigan, and is protected under the FDCPA from 

harassment, oppression and abuse in connection with the collection of a debt as referenced by 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 11

5. KATHERINE DAVIS, (hereinafter “KATHERINE”), is the Mother of DENNIE, who does not 

owe a debt and therefore not a “consumer,” but is nevertheless is a protected person under the 

FDCPA from harassment, oppression and abuse in connection with the collection of a debt as 

referenced by 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, as defined by this statute as “any person.” 

6. Defendants, ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, (hereinafter "ARS") is, based upon 

information and belief, a New York corporation and a collection agency operating from an 

address of 275 Northpointe, Ste. 80, Amherst, New York 14226, and is a "debt collector" as that 

term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

7. Defendant, JANE DOE, A/K/A MILA DEAN (hereinafter “MILA”), is believed to be a natural 

person employed by ARS as a collection agent and is a "debt collector" as that term is defined by 

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Jane Doe acted 

as an agent for ARS in attempting to collect a debt from DENNIE. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Based upon information, belief and knowledge, Plaintiff, DENNIE, in his own name, allegedly 

opened a line of credit with HSBC (hereinafter “GE”), and incurred a balance of approximately 

$700.00, which was used for personal, family, or household purposes and is therefore a “debt” as 

that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

9. Based upon information, belief and knowledge, sometime in the month of August 2014, the 

alleged debt of Plaintiff, DENNIE was consigned, placed or otherwise transferred to Defendant, 

ARS, for collection. 

Collection Activities Begin in August 2014

10. In August 2014, on information and belief, the Defendant, ARS, by and through its employee 

collectors, commenced collection calls to both plaintiffs, as well as another member of the Davis 

family utilizing an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS). 

11. Based upon information and belief, ARS made automated collection calls to both Plaintiffs’ cell 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11

phones, (810) 449-4081 and (810) 962-4074, in violation of the TCPA’s prohibitions on 

automated calls to cell phones, 47 USC 227(b). 

12. Defendant ARS, connected with Plaintiffs on live calls and its employees were threatening, 

disrespectful and undignified in their communications with Plaintiffs while attempting to collect 

the debt. 

13. Specifically ARS advised that DENNIE was a “respondent” on a “civil claim” and that he 

“needed” to respond to “charges” and provide “a statement of defense” on a recorded line. 

14. ARS also requested plaintiff to have his “lawyer” call them back regarding case or claim number 

250322 and that failure to respond would “forfeit” his right to dispute the charging being filed 

against you.” 

15. This is not the first time that ARS has committed similar violations of the FDCPA and other state 

and federal laws. See CASE 0:14-cv-03110-DWF-FLN Document 1 Filed 08/06/14. 

16. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests as to Defendant’s identity, ARS refused to give meaning disclosure 

as to its legal name, identity and business location. 

17. Further ARS requested KATHERINE to pass a message to DENNIE for him to call ARS back 

regarding a “claim filed in Genesee County.” 

18. When plaintiffs requested Defendant to provide written proof of the existence of debt and the 

original creditor information, Defendant misrepresented that ARS was under no obligation to 

provide any written letters as they were only a “claims processing company.” 

19. Defendant’s communications to this third party, KATHERINE, caused Plaintiff DENNIE 

embarrassment, humiliation and outrage entitling him to exemplary and punitive damages under 

Michigan law. 

20. Defendant also placed calls without accurate caller ID identifying that it was Defendants calling and 

using a local area code number (810) despite ARS calling from East Amhurst, New York. 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11

21. Defendant’s communication to third party, KATHERINE, constitutes multiple violations under the 

FDCPA as will be further outlined below. 

22. Defendant’s collection communications are in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the 

FDCPA, including but not limited to: 

a. § 1692b(1). Contact of Third Party: failed to state that collector is confirming or 

correcting location information; 

b. § 1692b(2). Contact of Third Party: Stated that the consumer owes any debt; 

c. § 1692c(b). With anyone except consumer, consumer’s attorney, or credit bureau 

concerning the debt; 

d. § 1692d. Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or 

abuse any person; 

e. § 1692d(6). Placed telephone calls without disclosing his/her identity. 

f. § 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in 

connection with the debt collection 

g. § 1692 e(2) Character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt; 

h. § 1692 e(5) Threaten to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not 

intended to be taken; 

i. § 1692 e(7) Consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace 

the consumer; 

j. § 1692 e(10) Any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain 

information about a consumer 

k. § 1692 e(11) Communication fail to contain the mini-Miranda warning: "This is an 

attempt to collect a debt... communication is from a debt collector;” 

l. § 1692 e(14) Any name other than the true name of the debt collector's business; 

m. § 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the 

alleged debt; 

n. § 1692 g Failure to send the consumer a 30-day validation notice within five days of 

the initial communication. 

23. ARS used an “automated telephone dialing system” and prerecorded messages when making 

these collection calls to DENNIE and KATHERINE. 

24. Despite, Plaintiff’s requests to Defendants, ARS and MILA, to stop calling plaintiffs’ cell 

phones, ARS nevertheless continued robo-dialing Plaintiffs. 

25. Based upon information and belief, at no prior time did Plaintiffs provide consent to Defendants 

to call his cell phone number using an Automated Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”). 

26. ARS continued its collection efforts using its ATDS and leaving prerecorded messages in 

violation of 47 USC 227(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 01/13/15 Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11

27. ARS continued making these calls on and off from August 2014 through September 2014, 

despite Plaintiffs requests to stop calling. 

28. Each of these communications violated the TCPA, as PLAINTIFFS did not consent to the calls. 

29. ARS failed to send Plaintiff DENNIE a 30 day validation notice in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g. 

30. ARS violated black letter law under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing 

to provide written notice required by 15 USC § 1692g(3). 

31. Federal law requires a debt collector, debt buyer and debt collection lawyers to provide notice to 

a consumer that the consumer owes a debt. 

32. This provision “significant feature” gives the consumer the right to obtain verification that the 

debt is owed from the collector. 

33. ARS never sent a written “g” notice about this debt, informing Plaintiff DENNIE of who the 

original creditor was or what his rights were in disputing the debt. 

34. DENNIE has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection communications by 

ARS in the form of anger, anxiety, emotional distress, sadness, grieving, fear, frustration, 

embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and 

abusive invasions of personal privacy. 

Respondeat Superior Liability

35. The acts and omissions of Defendants and the individual debt collectors employed as agents by 

ARS, who communicated with Plaintiffs as described herein, were committed within the time 

and scope limits of their agency relationship with their principal, ARS. 

36. The acts and omissions by ARS's agents were incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the 

responsibilities these agents were authorized to perform by ARS in collecting consumer debts. 

37. By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiffs, ARS's agents were motivated to 

benefit their principal, ARS. 

38. ARS is therefore liable to Plaintiffs through the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 01/13/15 Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11

intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by 

its collection employees, including but not limited to violations of the FDCPA, TCPA, MOC or 

alternatively MCPA, in their attempts to collect this debt from DENNIE or KATHERINE. 

JURY DEMAND

39. Plaintiffs are entitled to and hereby respectfully demand a trial by jury. US Const. amend. 7. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. 

COUNT I 

Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et Seq. 

40. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully 

stated herein. 

41. The foregoing acts and omissions of ARS and MILA DEAN constitute numerous and multiple 

violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every one of the below cited 

provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

42. The allegations stated in this complaint constitute collection communications in violation of 

multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to: 

a. § 1692b(1). Contact of Third Party: failed to state that collector is confirming or 

correcting location information; 

b. § 1692b(2). Contact of Third Party: Stated that the consumer owes any debt; 

c. § 1692c(b). With anyone except consumer, consumer’s attorney, or credit bureau 

concerning the debt; 

d. § 1692d. Any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or 

abuse any person; 

e. § 1692d(6). Placed telephone calls without disclosing his/her identity. 

f. § 1692 e Any other false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in 

connection with the debt collection 

g. § 1692 e(2) Character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt; 

h. § 1692 e(5) Threaten to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not 

intended to be taken; 

i. § 1692 e(7) Consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace 

the consumer; 

j. § 1692 e(10) Any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain 

information about a consumer 

k. § 1692 e(11) Communication fail to contain the mini-Miranda warning: "This is an 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 01/13/15 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11

attempt to collect a debt... communication is from a debt collector;” 

l. § 1692 e(14) Any name other than the true name of the debt collector's business; 

m. § 1692 f Any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the 

alleged debt; 

n. § 1692 g Failure to send the consumer a 30-day validation notice within five days of 

the initial communication. 

43. As a result of the ARSs' violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 each 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). 

COUNT II 

Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion 

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated 

herein. 

45. Defendants intentionally interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or 

private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiffs, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to 

collect a debt. 

46. Defendants intentionally caused harm to Plaintiffs emotional wellbeing by engaging in highly 

offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt thereby invading and intruding upon 

Plaintiffs’ right to privacy. 

47. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their solitude, seclusion, and or private 

concerns or affairs. 

48. These intrusions and invasions by Defendants occurred in a way that would be highly offensive 

to a reasonable person in that position. 

49. As a result of such invasions of privacy, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages in an amount to 

be determined at trial from each and every Defendants. 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 01/13/15 Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11

COUNT III 

Violations of the Michigan Occupational Code as Alternative to Claims under the Michigan 

Collection Practices Act 

50. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding allegations by reference. 

51. Defendants and its employees/agents are “collection agencies” as that term is defined in the 

Michigan Occupation Code (“MOC”), MCL 339.901(b). 

52. Plaintiffs are debtors or other protected persons as that term is defined in MCL 339.901(l). 

53. Defendants’ foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt against Plaintiffs constitute 

violations of the Occupation Code. 

54. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of these violations of the Michigan Occupation 

Code. 

55. These violations of the Michigan Occupation Code were willful. 

COUNT IV 

Violations of the Michigan Collection Practices Act (as Alternative to Claims under the 

Michigan Occupational Code) 

54. Plaintiffs incorporates the preceding allegations by reference. 

55. Defendants are “regulated persons” under the Michigan Debt Collections Practices Act 

(“MDCPA”) MCL 445.251 (g)(xi). 

56. Defendants’ foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt against Plaintiffs constitute 

violations of the Michigan Debt Collections Practices Act (“MDCPA”) MCL 445.251 et seq.

57. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of these violations of the Michigan Debt Collections 

Practices Act. 

58. These violations of the Michigan Collections Practices Act were willful. 

COUNT V 

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

47 U.S.C. § 227 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 01/13/15 Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11

56. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the above paragraphs by reference. 

57. On information and belief, on multiple occasions from August 2014 to September 2014, ARS 

"willfully" violated the TCPA by using an “automatic telephone dialing system” to contact 

DENNIE and KATHERINE on their cell phones without Plaintiffs’ express consent. 

58. On multiple occasions, ARS "willfully" violated the TCPA by using prerecorded messages to 

contact DENNIE and KATHERINE on their cell phones, despite Plaintiffs’ repeatedly 

requesting Defendants to stop. 

59. Defendant violated the provisions of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

60. As a result of these violations of the TCPA, DENNIE and KATHERINE are entitled to actual 

damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.; statutory damages in an amount up to $500.00 for 

each violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.; and treble damages ($1,500 per violation) 47 

U.S.C. §427(b)(3). 

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered against each and every Defendants: 

COUNT I 

Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

• for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against each and every 

Defendant and for Plaintiffs; 

• for an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A) 

against each and every Defendant and for Plaintiffs; 

• for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(3) against each and every Defendant and for Plaintiffs; 

COUNT II 

Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 01/13/15 Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11

• for an award of actual damages from each and every Defendant for the emotional distress 

suffered as a result of the FDCPA violations and invasions of privacy in an amount to be 

determined at trial and for Plaintiffs; and 

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

COUNT III 

Violations of the Michigan Occupational Code as Alternative to Claims under the Michigan 

Collection Practices Act 

• for an award of actual, treble, punitive and statutory damages from each and every Defendant 

for the emotional distress suffered as a result of the Michigan Occupation Code violations in an 

amount to be determined at trial and for Plaintiffs and 

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

COUNT IV 

Violations of the Michigan Debt Collection Practices Act (as Alternative to Claims under the 

Michigan Occupational Code) 

• for an award of actual, treble, punitive and statutory damages from each and every Defendant 

for the emotional distress suffered as a result of the Michigan Debt Collections Practices Act 

violations in an amount to be determined at trial and for Plaintiffs; and 

• for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

COUNT V 

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

47 U.S.C. § 227et seq. 

• for an award of actual damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. against each and every 

Defendant and for Plaintiffs; 

• for an award of statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. against each and every 

Defendant and for Plaintiffs; 

• for an award of treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3); 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 01/13/15 Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11

Dated: January 13, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

REX ANDERSON, PC 

 

/s/ Rex C. Anderson 

Rex C. Anderson, Attorney for Plaintiffs 

9459 Lapeer Rd. Ste. 101 

Davison, MI 48423 

(810) 653-3300 

mied@rexandersonpc.com 

(P47068) 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 01/13/15 Page 11 of 11