1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORTINA ANN GATER

Plaintiff,

-vs.

RUSSELL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.,

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Cortina Ann Gater through counsel, Stephen A. Thomas, 

PLC, by Stephen A. Thomas states the following claims for relief:

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for pendent state law 

claims, which are predicated upon the same facts and circumstances that give 

rise to the federal causes of action. 

2. This action arises out of Defendant Russell Collection Agency, Inc.’s 

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

(“FDCPA”) and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal privacy by 

Defendant and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 9
2

3. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions 

occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, and Defendant transacts business here.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater is a natural person who resides in the City 

of Farmington, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, and is a “consumer” 

as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

5. Defendant Russell Collection Agency, Inc. (hereinafter (“Russell”) is 

a Michigan corporation with minimum contacts in Michigan and is a “debt 

collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Defendant Russell may be 

served by serving Gerald M. Wenta, G-3285 Van Slyke Road Flint, 

Michigan 48507-3278.

VENUE

6. The transactions and occurrences which give rise to this action 

occurred in Wayne County.

7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater received services from Botsford Imaging

Center on April 29, 2012.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 9
3

9. That Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater suffers from a condition called 

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), which is a disorder that can lead 

to easy or excessive bruising and bleeding.

10. That Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on 

March 27, 2013.

11 That Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater received her Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 

discharge on July 2, 2013.

12. That Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater was subsequently contacted by 

Defendant Russell that she owed an outstanding balance of $541.00 from

Botsford Imaging Center in a letter dated January 22, 2014.

13. That Defendant Russell sent the collection letter to the address of 

Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater’s mother at 15484 Steel Street, Detroit, MI 

48227-4034.

COUNT I - FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT.

14. Plaintiff Cortina Ann Gater incorporates the preceding allegations by 

reference.

15. At all relevant times Defendant Russell, in the ordinary course of its 

business, regularly engaged in the practice of collecting debts on behalf of 

other individuals or entities.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 9
4

16. Plaintiffs are "consumers" for purposes of the FDCPA and the account 

at issue in this case is a consumer debt.

17. Defendant Russell is a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

18. Defendant Russell's foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt 

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

19. The Plaintiff has suffered economic, emotional, general and statutory 

damages as a result of these violations of the FDCPA.

COUNT II - VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL 

CODE.

20. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

21. Defendant Russell is a "collection agency" as that term is defined in 

the Michigan Occupational Code ("MOC"), M.C.L. § 339.901(b).

22. Plaintiff is a “debtor” as that term is defined in M.C.L. § 339.901(f).

23. Defendant Russell’s foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt 

violated M.C.L. § 339.915.

24. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the 

Michigan Occupational Code.

25. These violations of the Michigan Occupational Code were willful.

COUNT III - VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 9
5

26. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

27. Defendant Russell is a "regulated person" as that term is defined in the 

Michigan Collection Practices Act ("MCPA"), at M.C.L. § 445.251.

28. Plaintiff is a "consumer" as that term is defined at M.C.L. § 445.251.

29. Defendant Russell’s foregoing acts in attempting to collect this debt 

violated M.C.L. § 445.252.

30. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of these violations of the 

MCPA.

31. These violations of the MCPA were willful.

COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT.

32. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

33. At all relevant times, Defendant Russell, upon information and belief, 

was using an “automatic telephone dialing system” in connection with its 

offending contacts with the Plaintiffs as that term is defined at 47 U.S.C. § 

227(a)(1).

34. At no time has the Defendant Russell ever had an “established 

business relationship” with the Plaintiff as that term is defined at 47 U.S.C. § 

227(a)(2).

35. Plaintiff is a "consumer" for purposes of the TCPA and the debt at 

issue is a consumer debt.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 9
6

36. In violation of the proscription against contacting persons on cellular 

telephones, the Defendant Russell made several contacts in contravention of 

47 USC § 227(b)(1)(iii).

37. These violations of this statute were all willful.

38. The Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of these violations of 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

COUNT V – INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON 

SECLUSION.

39. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

40. The restatement of Torts, Second, § 652(b) defines intrusion upon 

seclusion, "One who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of 

another, or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other 

for invasion of privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to the 

reasonable person."

41. Michigan further recognizes the Plaintiff’s right to be free from 

invasions of privacy, thus Defendant Russell violated Michigan state law.

42. The Defendant Russell intentionally intruded upon Plaintiff’s right to 

privacy by continually harassing the Plaintiff with an excessive amount of 

calls to her cell phone.

43. The telephone calls made by Defendant Russell to the Plaintiff were 

so persistent and repeated with such frequency as to be considered, 

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 9
7

"hounding the plaintiff" and "a substantial burden to their existence, " thus 

satisfying the Restatement of Torts, Second, §652(b) requirement for an 

invasion of privacy.

44. The conduct of the Defendant Russell in engaging in the illegal 

collection activities resulted in multiple invasions of privacy in such a way 

as would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person.

45. As a result of the intrusions and invasions, the Plaintiff is entitled to 

actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Defendant 

Russell.

46. All acts of Defendant Russell and its agents were committed with 

malice, intent,

wantonness, and recklessness, and as such, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive 

damages.

COUNT VI - INTENTIONAL (OR NEGLIGENT) INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

47. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

48. The acts, practices and conduct engaged in by the Defendant Russell

vis-a-vis the Plaintiff were so outrageous in character, and so extreme in 

degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded 

as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 9
8

49. The foregoing conduct constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of 

emotional distress under the laws of the State of Michigan.

50. Defendant Russell could reasonably foresee its conduct would cause 

mental anguish and severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

51. Plaintiff did indeed suffer mental anguish and severe emotional 

distress including post-traumatic stress, paranoia, and depression.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands trial by jury in this action.

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant her the following 

relief against the Defendant Russell:

a. Actual damages.

b. Statutory damages.

c. Treble damages.

d. Statutory costs and attorney fees.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen A. Thomas

January 6, 2015 STEPHEN A. THOMAS P43260

Attorney for Plaintiff

645 Griswold St., Suite 1360

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313-965-2265

sthomas@313965Bank.com

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 9
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

)ss

COUNTY OF WAYNE )

I, Cortina A. Gater, having first been duly sworn and upon oath, depose and

say as follows:

1. I am a Plaintiffin this civil proceeding.

2. I have read the above-entitled civil Complaint prepared by my attorneys

and I believe that all ofthe facts contained in it are true, to the best of my

knowledge, information and beliefformed after reasonable inquiry.

3. I believe thatthis civil Complaint iswell grounded in fact and warranted by

existing law orby a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or

reversal of existing law.

4. I believe that this civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper

purpose, such as to harass any Defendants), cause unnecessary delay to

any Defendants), or create a needless increase in the cost of litigation to

any Defendants), namedin the Complaint.

5. I have filed this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes

set forth in it.

6. Each and every exhibit I have provided to my attorneys which has been

attached to this Complaint is a true and correct copy ofthe original.

7. Except for clearly indicated redactions made by my attorneys where

appropriate, I have not altered, changed, modified, or fabricated these

exhibits, except that some ofthe attached exhibits may contain some ofmy

own handwritten notations.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing istrue andcorrect.

Cortina A. Gater

Subscrib

19th da

Case 2:15-cv-10033-NGE-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 01/06/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 9