IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Roberta Cornist, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Credit Acceptance Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: ______ 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

 For this Complaint, the Plaintiff, Roberta Cornist, 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, Roberta Cornist (“Plaintiff”), is an adult individual residing in 

Cincinnati, Ohio, 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 Twelve Mile Road, Suite 3000 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-10913-VAR-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 03/12/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 4
FACTS

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

debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. 

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

513-xxx-0561, by using an automated telephone dialer system (“ATDS”) and an artificial or 

prerecorded voice. 

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

message stating to hold for the next available representative. 

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

provided her consent to be contacted on her cellular telephone. 

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

provided her consent to be contacted on her cellular telephone. 

14. Without prior consent CAC contacted the Plaintiff by means of automatic 

telephone calls and prerecorded messages at a cellular telephone in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

Case 2:15-cv-10913-VAR-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 03/12/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 4
15. CAC continued to placed automated calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

knowing there was no consent to continue the calls. 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). 

16. 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). 

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

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

18. CAC’s telephone system has the capacity to store numbers in a random and 

sequential manner. 

19. 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). 

20. 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-10913-VAR-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 03/12/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 4
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Dated: March 12, 2015 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Roberta Cornist 

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-10913-VAR-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 03/12/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 4