1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALECIA WHEELER, 

Plaintiff,

-vsSYNCHRONY BANK f/k/a 

GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK,

Defendant.

/

CASE NO.: 

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff alleges repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. (“TCPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

INTRODUCTION

2. The TCPA was enacted to prevent companies like SYNCHRONY 

BANK f/k/a GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK from invading American citizens’ 

privacy and prevent abusive “robo-calls.”

3. “The TCPA is designed to protect individual consumers from 

receiving intrusive and unwanted telephone calls.” Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 

LLC, –US--, 132 S.Ct. 740, 745, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012).

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1
4. “Senator Hollings, the TCPA’s sponsor, described these calls as ‘the 

*1256 scourge of modern civilization, they wake us up in the morning; they 

interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound 

us until we want to rip the telephone out of the wall.” 137 Cong. Rec. 30, 821 

(1991) Senator Hollings presumably intended to give telephone subscribers another 

option: telling the autodialers to simply stop calling.” Osario v. State Farm Bank, 

F.S.B., 746 F. 3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction and venue for purposes of this action are appropriate and 

conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

6. The alleged violations described herein occurred in Oakland County, 

Michigan. Accordingly, venue is appropriate with this Court under 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(b)(2), as it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to this action occurred.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff is a natural person, and citizen of the State of Michigan, 

residing in Oakland County, Michigan, and resides in this District. 

8. Plaintiff is the “called party.” See Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., 

LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 643 (7th Cir. 2012), reh'g denied (May 25, 2012); Osorio v. 

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2
State Farm Bank, FSB, 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. March 28, 2014); and Breslow v 

Wells Fargo, N.A., 2014 WL 2565984 (11th Cir. June 9, 2014).

9. Defendant is a corporation and a citizen of the state of Delaware with 

its principal place of business at 335 New Commerce Boulevard, Wilkes-Barre, 

Pennsylvania and doing business in the State of Michigan.

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

Defendant sought to collect a debt from Plaintiff that arose from a transaction 

incurred for personal, family or household purposes and therefore is a “consumer 

debt.”

11. The debt that is the subject matter of this complaint is a “consumer 

debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692(a)(4).

12. Plaintiff is the subscriber, regular user and carrier of the cellular 

telephone number, (313) 629-8042, and was the called party and recipient of 

Defendant’s autodialed calls.

13. Defendant intentionally harassed and abused Plaintiff on numerous 

occasions by calling several times during one day, and on back to back days, with 

such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass.

14. Upon information and belief, each call the Defendant made to the 

Plaintiff was made using an “automatic telephone dialing system” which has the 

capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, without human 

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3
intervention, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such 

numbers as specified by 47 U.S.C §227(a)(1).

15. Furthermore, each of the calls at issue were placed by the Defendant

using a “prerecorded voice,” as specified by the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).

16. None of Defendant’s telephone calls placed to Plaintiff were for 

“emergency purposes” as specified in 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A).

17. In or about October of 2011, Defendant initiated its campaign of 

phone calls to the Plaintiff on her aforementioned cellular telephone. Upon receipt 

of the calls, Plaintiff’s caller ID identified that the calls were being initiated from, 

but not limited to, the following phone numbers: (800) 292-7508, (937) 534-2092, 

(480) 707-4006 and (605) 355-5648.

18. In or about November of 2011, due to the ceaseless barrage of phone 

calls from Defendant, Plaintiff answered a call from Defendant on her 

aforementioned cellular telephone, received Defendant’s pre-recorded message, 

held the line to be connected with an agent/representative, and demanded that 

Defendant cease placing calls to her aforementioned cellular telephone number. 

19. During the aforementioned conversation with an agent/representative 

of Defendant in or about November of 2011, Plaintiff expressly revoked any 

consent Defendant believed it may have had for placement of telephone calls to 

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 4
Plaintiff’s aforementioned cellular telephone number by the use of an automatic 

telephone dialing system or a pre-recorded or artificial voice. 

20. Each subsequent call the Defendant made to the Plaintiff’s 

aforementioned cellular telephone number was done so without the “express 

permission” of the Plaintiff.

21. Each subsequent call the Defendant made to the Plaintiff’s 

aforementioned cellular telephone number was knowing and willful.

22. Despite demanding that Defendant stop contacting her on her 

aforementioned cellular telephone number, the calls from Defendant continued.

23. On numerous occasions Plaintiff answered a call from Defendant on 

her aforementioned cellular telephone, received Defendant’s pre-recorded 

message, held the line to be connected with an agent/representative, and instructed 

Defendant to cease calling her aforementioned cellular telephone number, to which 

an agent/representative of Defendant would respond that the calls were automated 

and would continue until the debt was satisfied.

24. Additionally, on or about November 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a 

complaint with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Defendant’s repeated 

calls to her aforementioned cellular telephone number, and stated in her complaint 

that she was receiving “harassing phone calls more than 5 times per day” from 

telephone number (480) 707-4006.

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 5
25. From about October of 2011 through December of 2012, Defendant

made approximately one-hundred fifty (150) calls to Plaintiff’s aforementioned 

cellular telephone number, or as will be established after a thorough review of 

Defendant’s records, who should be in possession and/or control of call logs, 

account notes, autodialer reports and/or other records that detail the exact number 

of autodialer calls made to Plaintiff over the relevant time period. [Please see 

attached Exhibit A, demonstrating a non-exclusive call log of at least one-hundred 

ten (110) phone calls from November 4, 2011 through July 9, 2012.]

26. On more than 30 occasions, Defendant left numerous artificial and/or 

prerecorded messages when calling the Plaintiff’s cellular phone.

27. Despite actual knowledge of their wrongdoing, the Defendant 

continued the campaign of abuse, calling the Plaintiff despite not having her 

express permission to call her aforementioned cellular telephone number. 

28. Defendant continued to leave voice messages using a pre-recorded or 

artificial voice message when calling the Plaintiff, despite not have her express 

permission to do so.

29. Defendant’s corporate policy and procedures are structured as to 

continue to call individuals like the Plaintiff, despite these individuals revoking 

any consent the Defendant may have had. 

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 6
30. Defendant’s, corporate policy and procedures provided no means for 

the Plaintiff to have her aforementioned cellular number removed from the call list.

31. Defendant has a corporate policy of using an automatic telephone 

dialing system or a prerecorded or artificial voice message to collect debts from 

individuals such as Plaintiff for its financial benefit.

32. Defendant has many similar complaints from consumers across the 

country, as those alleged in this lawsuit, by Plaintiff.

33. Defendant violated the TCPA with respect to the Plaintiff.

34. Defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA with respect to 

the Plaintiff.

COUNT I

(Violation of the TCPA)

35. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through thirty-four (34).

36. Defendant caused placement of non-emergency telephone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or 

prerecorded or artificial voice without Plaintiff’s prior express consent in violation 

of federal law, including 47 U.S.C § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

37. Defendant willfully and knowingly caused placement of nonemergency telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an automatic 

telephone dialing system or prerecorded or artificial voice without Plaintiff’s prior 

express consent in violation of federal law, including 47 U.S.C § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 7
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues 

so triable and judgment against Defendant for statutory damages, punitive 

damages, actual damages and any other such relief the court may deem just and 

proper.

COUNT II

(Violation of the FDCPA)

38. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through thirty-four (34).

39. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant is subject to and must 

abide by 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

40. Defendant engaged in an act or omission prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692(d) by willfully engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which is to 

harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.

41. Defendant engaged in an act or omission prohibited under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692(d)(5) by causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone 

conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any 

person at the called number.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues 

so triable and judgment against for statutory damages, punitive damages, actual 

damages, costs, interest, attorney fees and any other such relief the court may deem 

just and proper.

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 8
Respectfully submitted,

s/Amanda Allen

Amanda J. Allen, Esquire

Morgan & Morgan, Tampa, P.A.

One Tampa City Center

201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor

Tampa, FL 33602

Tele: (813) 223-5505

Fax: (813) 223-5402

AAllen@ForThePeople.com

Florida Bar #: 0098228

Attorney for Plaintiff

And

s/Julie Petrik

Julie Petrik, Esquire

Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law 

Center, PLC

24500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 206

Southfield, MI 48070

Tele: (248) 208-8864

Fax: (248) 208-9073

Julie@MichiganConsumerLaw.com

Designated Local Counsel for Plaintiff

2:15-cv-11691-MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 05/12/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 9