1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

PAULA WESTON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., a National 

Association, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-10168

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Paula Weston brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for 

Jury Trial (“Complaint”) against Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. to stop its

practice of making unsolicited telephone calls, specifically automated robocalls, to 

the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all 

persons injured by its conduct. Plaintiff, for her Complaint, alleges as follows upon 

personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences, and, as to all 

other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by 

her attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendant Credit One holds itself out as “one of America’s leading 

issuers of . . . credit cards . . . to individuals who have been historically overlooked 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1
2

by other banks because of their less than perfect credit.”

1

2. In an effort to collect allegedly outstanding payments on its credit 

offerings, Defendant made (and continues to make) widespread automated

“robocalls” calls to consumers’ cellular telephones (featuring prerecorded or 

artificial voices) to “remind” and persuade them to pay their bills. 

3. Unfortunately, Defendant casted its net far too wide and placed 

collection calls to the cellular telephones of thousands of individuals who never 

consented to receive such calls at those specific telephone numbers, or worse, to 

individuals who didn’t even have credit cards with Defendant and, as such, don’t 

have outstanding debts to be collected by them.

4. Defendant obtained the telephone numbers called using practices

known as “skip tracing”—locating an individual’s number by searching through 

public and private databases—and “number trapping”—capturing numbers used to 

call Defendant and then adding those numbers to its database to be called in the 

future. 

5. To make matters worse, once Defendant obtained an individual’s 

phone number, it placed dozens of phone calls to the number, sometimes ten or 

more a day over a multi-week period. 

6. Because Defendant made (and continues to make) unsolicited 

 1 Frequently Asked Questions, Credit One Bank, N.A., 

https://www.creditonebank.com/faqs.aspx (last visited January 15, 2015).

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 2
3

robocalls to consumers’ cellular telephones without prior express consent, it

violated (and continues to violate) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 

U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”).

7. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited and 

repeated telephone calls exactly like those alleged in this case. Defendant made 

these calls despite the fact that neither Plaintiff, nor the other members of a

putative Class of consumers (defined below), ever provided Defendant with their 

prior express consent to be called. By making the phone calls at issue in this 

Complaint, Defendant caused Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual 

harm, including the aggravation and nuisance that necessarily accompanies the 

receipt of unsolicited phone calls and the monies paid to their telephone carriers for 

the receipt of such calls.

8. In response to Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff files the instant 

lawsuit seeking an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unlawful calling 

activities, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class as 

provided under the TCPA, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Paula Weston is a natural person and citizen of the State of 

Michigan.

10. Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. (Charter Number 20291) is a 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 3
4

National Association with its principal place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89119. Credit One conducts business throughout this District, 

the State of Michigan, and the United States. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as 

the action arises under the TCPA, which is a federal statute. This Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts significant amounts of 

business transactions within this District, and because the wrongful conduct giving 

rise to this case occurred in, was directed to, and/or emanated from this District.

12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendant conducts significant amounts of business transactions within this 

District, and because the wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was 

directed to, and/or emanated from this District. Venue is additionally proper 

because Plaintiff resides in this District.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant Credit One is one of the largest issuers of credit cards in 

the United States, specifically targeting individuals with lower than average credit.

14. When consumers become delinquent on their credit card payments or 

when payments are imminently due, Defendant attempts to collect such payments 

by, among other things, making repeated telephone calls to consumers’ cellular 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 4
5

telephones featuring automated recordings—better known as robocalls. 

15. Unfortunately, in Defendant’s overzealous attempts to collect

supposed debts, it placed (and continues to place) phone calls to cellular telephone 

numbers that consumers never provided consent to call, and to consumers that it 

had no relationship with and who were not holders of one of its credit cards, let 

alone debtors. 

16. Defendant obtained their telephone numbers by using practices such 

as “skip tracing” and “number trapping.” The issue with these practices is that skip 

trace reports often return contact information for individuals associated with the 

alleged debtor (e.g., relative’s or roommate’s numbers, not the individual’s) or, in 

certain cases, totally unrelated contact information. Likewise, number trapping 

captures incoming numbers and assigns them to an alleged debtor’s account even if 

the incoming call is from, for example, a friend’s telephone number. 

17. Regardless of how it obtained consumers’ telephone numbers, 

Defendant inputted the newly acquired contact information into its database and 

proceeded to place numerous, if not dozens, of calls to those numbers. 

18. The non-debtors did not provide, nor could they have provided, their 

prior express consent to receive such calls. Likewise, the alleged debtors must 

provide actual prior express consent to receive calls at specific cellular telephone 

numbers called, and as such, numbers acquired from sources other than the 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 5
6

consumers themselves (or documents filled out by the consumers), do not meet the 

requisite consent standard. 

19. Many of these supposed collection calls made by Defendant featured a 

prerecorded message, commonly known as a “robocall.” This message informed 

the call recipient that it was an “important call” and that he or she should “stay on 

the line” to speak with a live agent. The prerecorded message plays after a long 

pause when the call recipient answers the phone, then he or she is put on hold, 

potentially never to be connected at all. If the call recipient is actually able to 

connect with a live person and inform them that Defendant has the wrong number 

and the wrong person, or that he or she did not consent to receive calls at that 

number, Defendant’s callers persist in asking probing questions and repeatedly 

calling back. 

20. Ultimately, neither Plaintiff nor the other members of the proposed 

Class ever provided the telephone numbers called to Defendant for the purpose of 

receiving collection calls. Further, neither Plaintiff, nor the other members of the 

putative Class, ever consented to receive these robocalls (or any other calls) at the 

telephone numbers called by Defendant.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF WESTON

21. Starting in or around September 2014, Plaintiff Weston began 

receiving telephone calls on her cellular telephone from several numbers, including 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 6
7

but not limited to (855) 213-5764, (602) 282-1665, (866) 372-2508, and (210) 892-

2189. Upon answering such calls, Plaintiff heard a prerecorded or artificial voice 

stating a message substantially similar to the message described in Paragraph 19

above. In certain instances, Plaintiff Weston heard a long pause after saying 

“hello” several times and would then hang up (or be disconnected). When Plaintiff 

called the number back she could not get past the initial menu because it required 

her to input the last four digits of a social security number associated with an 

account or debt (of which she had neither).

22. Eventually the calls became so numerous that she utilized a call 

blocking mobile phone application to stop them. Through this application, Plaintiff 

could determine that she was called over seventy-five times.

23. In or around October 2014, Plaintiff answered a call (that came from a 

new number) and was finally able to speak with a live person. At that time—and 

only after Plaintiff repeatedly pressed the caller for his identity—Defendant’s 

representative explain that it was calling in search of a person named “Jeff.” When 

Plaintiff informed the caller that she was not Jeff, Defendant’s representative (a 

collections agent) aggressively questioned her about how long she has had her cell 

phone number and whether she knew anyone named Jeff that lived in her residence 

or who used that phone number. Plaintiff answered “no” to both questions as no 

one named Jeff did or had lived there and she has no relatives named Jeff. 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 7
8

24. Plaintiff does not have a credit card issued by Defendant and has no 

relationship with Defendant whatsoever. Plaintiff did not provide her cellular 

telephone number to Defendant or any of its agents, and as such, did not provide 

any form of consent to be called by Defendant or its agents. 

25. As a result of Defendant’s intrusive calls, Plaintiff’s privacy rights 

were repeatedly violated and she suffered harm in the form of monies paid to her 

wireless carrier.

26. Defendant was and is aware that the above-described telephone calls

were being made, and that the telephone calls were being made to consumers who 

had not consented to receive them.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

27. Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of herself and a Class and 

Subclass of similarly situated individuals defined as follows:

Class: All individuals in the United States: (1) who received a

telephone call on his or her cellular telephone; (2) related to a 

credit card issued by Defendant Credit One Bank; (3) that 

featured an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (4) for which

Defendant had no record of prior express consent to make such 

call(s) to the telephone number that received it.

Subclass: All individuals in the United States: (1) who received 

a telephone call on his or her cellular telephone; (2) related to a 

credit card issued by Defendant Credit One Bank; (3) who do 

not have a credit card issued by Defendant (or any other 

business relationship with Credit One Bank); (4) that featured 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 8
9

an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (5) for which Defendant 

had no record of prior express consent to make such call(s) to 

the telephone number that received it.

The following people are excluded from the Class and Subclass (collectively 

referred to as the “Class,” unless otherwise indicated): (1) any Judge or Magistrate 

presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, 

Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in 

which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or 

former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and 

file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this 

matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) 

Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, 

successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.

28. Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown and not 

available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is 

impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant has made telephone calls to 

thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the 

Class can be identified through Defendant’s records.

29. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law 

and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions 

predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 9
10

Common questions for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to the 

following:

(a) whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;

(b) whether Defendant made calls featuring an artificial or 

prerecorded voice;

(c) whether Defendant systematically made phone calls to persons 

who did not previously provide Defendant and/or its agents 

with their prior express consent to receive such phone calls; and

(d) whether Class members are entitled to treble damages based on 

the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.

30. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other 

members of the Class, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained 

damages arising out of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited 

telephone calls.

31. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent 

and experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to 

those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.

32. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is 

appropriate for certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 10
11

grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s 

imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the 

Class members, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the 

Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the 

Class members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on 

Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law 

applicable only to Plaintiff.

33. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification 

because class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all parties is 

impracticable. The damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will 

likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual 

prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it 

would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain 

effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Class could 

sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, 

because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties 

due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By 

contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the 

benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision 

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 11
12

by a single court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered and 

uniformity of decisions ensured.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

34. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth 

herein.

35. Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telephone calls to cellular 

telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class

without their prior express consent. 

36. Defendant made unsolicited telephone calls to telephone numbers 

belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using a prerecorded or 

artificial voice, more commonly known as a “robocall.”

37. By making unsolicited robocalls utilizing an artificial or prerecorded 

voice to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s cellular telephones without prior express 

consent, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

38. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other 

members of the Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to 

receive unsolicited calls and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, 

inter alia, a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each violation of the

TCPA.

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 12
13

39. Should the Court determine that Defendant’s misconduct was willful 

and knowing, the Court may, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the 

amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class.

40. Further, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(A), to ensure that Defendant’s violations of the TCPA do not continue 

into the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paula Weston, individually and on behalf of the 

Class and Subclass, prays for the following relief:

1. An order certifying the Class and Subclass as defined above, 

appointing Plaintiff Paula Weston as representative of the Class and Subclass, and 

appointing her counsel as Class Counsel;

2. An award of actual and statutory damages;

3. An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited calling 

activities, and otherwise protecting the interests of the Class;

4. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

5. Such other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 13
14

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Respectfully submitted,

PAULA WESTON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Dated: January 15, 2015 By: /s/ Ari J. Scharg

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Henry M. Scharg – P28804 

hmsattyatlaw@aol.com

LAW OFFICE OF HENRY M. SCHARG

708 Ford Building

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Tel: 248.596.1111

Fax: 248.496.1578

Rafey S. Balabanian

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Ari J. Scharg

ascharg@edelson.com

Alicia E. Hwang

ahwang@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

2:15-cv-10168-SFC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 14