1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Gregory Cain

 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, Gregory Cain, (“Gregory”), is a natural person who resided in Ft. Myers Beach, 

Florida, 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, U.S.C. §1367(a).

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-13870-GCS-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Gregory 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 Gregory 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. Gregory 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 Gregory 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 December 2013, AA began contacting Gregory on Gregory’s cellular phone in 

connection with the collection of the debt.

15. During the initial communication, AA asked to speak with Gregory’s father, Richard, 

(“Father”).

16. During this communication, AA did not request Father’s location information.

17. During this communication, AA did not identify itself as a debt collector attempting to 

collect a debt.

Case 2:14-cv-13870-GCS-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 5
3

18. During this communication, AA advised Gregory it was important for Father to call AA 

back.

19. AA contacted Gregory for the sole purpose of collecting the debt, not for acquiring Father’s 

location information.

20. During this communication, Gregory requested AA cease further calls to Gregory.

21. Despite this request, AA contacted Gregory on Gregory’s cellular phone in connection with 

the collection of the debt on numerous occasions, most recently around May 2014.

22. Gregory repeatedly requested AA cease further calls to Gregory.

23. AA attempted to collect a debt from Gregory.

24. AA violated the FDCPA and the TCPA.

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

26. 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 TWO

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

28. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations 

or means in connection with the collection of the debt. 

COUNT THREE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

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

Case 2:14-cv-13870-GCS-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 5
4

30. 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

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

32. 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.

JURY DEMAND

33. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

34. 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.

Case 2:14-cv-13870-GCS-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 5
5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC LPA

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Hyslip

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq.

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA

1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

Telephone: 312-380-6110

Fax: 312-361-3509

jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Ohio Bar No. 0079315

Date: October 7, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-13870-GCS-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 10/07/14 Page 5 of 5