1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Brovia Evans

 Plaintiff,

v.

Stellar Recovery, Incorporated

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

UNDER THE FAIR DEBT 

COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT, THE 

MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL 

CODE AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

HEREIN

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Brovia Evans, (“Brovia”), is a natural person who resided in Detroit, 

Michigan, at all times relevant to this action.

2. Defendant, Stellar Recovery, Incorporated, (“SR”), is a Florida Corporation 

that maintained its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida, 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 

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1
2

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. and the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claims under the Michigan Occupational Code (“MOC”), Mich. 

Comp. Laws § 339.901, et seq., because those claims share a common nucleus 

of operative facts with Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA. See Litt v. 

Midland Credit Management, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66658 (E.D. Mich. 

May 15, 2014)(in FDCPA case, supplemental jurisdiction exercised over 

claims under MOC). 

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), venue is proper because a substantial part of 

the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

6. SR uses a predictive dialer system.

7. Before SR began contacting Brovia, it and Brovia had no prior business 

relationship and Brovia had never provided express consent to SR to be 

contacted on his cellular telephone.

8. SR regularly uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mails to 

collect consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

9. The principal source of SR’s revenue is debt collection.

10. SR is a "debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6).

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 2
3

11. As described, infra, SR contacted Brovia to collect a debt that was incurred 

primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

12. This alleged obligation is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5).

13. Brovia is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).

14. On several occasions, the dates of which will be discovered through 

discovery, SR willingly and knowingly used an automatic telephone dialing 

system to call Brovia on his cellular phone multiple times in violation of the 

TCPA. 

15. Within the past twelve months, SR began calling Brovia on Brovia’s cellular 

phone in an attempt to collect a debt for another individual.

16. Shortly after the calls began, Brovia notified SR that Brovia was not the 

individual SR was looking for, thus communicating his desire that SR cease 

calling him.

17. Despite this communication, SR continued to call Brovia on Brovia’s cellular 

phone in an attempt to collect a debt for another individual.

18. Brovia repeatedly notified SR that Brovia was not the individual SR was 

looking for, thus communicating his desire that SR cease calling him.

19. On more than one occasion, SR apologized for calling; however, SR continued 

to call Brovia in an attempt to collect a debt for another individual.

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 3
4

20. SR’s policies and procedures for processing account data received from 

original creditors fail to identify easily discoverable errors and avoid the 

needless harassment of undeserving consumers like Brovia.

21. SR unreasonably relied upon inaccurate information provided to SR by one (1) 

or more original creditors for whom SR was attempting to collect a debt when 

SR called Brovia’s cellular telephone.

22. SR’s policies and procedures violate the FDCPA.

23. SR caused Brovia emotional distress.

24. SR attempted to collect a debt from Brovia.

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 15 through 24

above as if fully set forth 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 re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 15 through 24

above as if fully set forth herein.

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 4
5

28. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means 

to collect the debt.

COUNT THREE

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

29. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 15 through 24

above as if fully set forth herein.

30. 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 an automatic telephone dialing system without Plaintiff’s 

prior express consent.

COUNT FOUR

Violations of the Michigan Occupational Code

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 15 through 24

above as if fully set forth herein.

32. Defendant is a “collection agency” as that term is defined in the MOC, Mich. 

Comp. Laws § 339.901(b).

33. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the MOC and is a person whom the act 

was intended to protect, Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.901(f). 

34. Defendant attempted to collect a “debt” within the meaning of Mich. Comp. 

Laws § 339.901(a).

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 5
6

35. Defendant willingly and knowingly violated Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.915(n) 

by using harassing, oppressive, or abusive methods to collect a debt.

36. Defendant willingly and knowingly violated Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.915(q) 

by failing to implement a procedure designed to prevent a violation by an 

employee.

37. Defendant’s willful violations of the MOC entitle Plaintiff to a civil penalty of 

not less than three (3) times the actual damages he sustained as a result of 

Defendant’s violations of the MOC.

JURY DEMAND

38. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

39. 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).

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 6
7

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. Judgment against Defendant for actual damages, statutory damages, 

costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, plus a civil penalty of not less 

than three (3) times Plaintiff’s actual damages, pursuant to Mich. 

Comp. Laws § 339.916.

e. For such other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Hyslip

Jeffrey S. Hyslip, Esq.

Hyslip & Taylor LLC, LPA

1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: 312-380-6110

Fax: 312-361-3509

Email: jeffrey@lifetimedebtsolutions.com

Ohio Bar No. 0079315

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Date: April 7, 2015

2:15-cv-11300-BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 7