UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WARREN OSTRANDER, ) 

) Case No. 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) COMPLAINT

) 

TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., ) 

) JURY DEMANDED

Defendant. ) 

Now comes the Plaintiff, WARREN OSTRANDER, by and through his attorneys, and for 

his Complaint against the Defendant TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff alleges and 

states as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

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

47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 1367, and 15

U.S.C. § 1692k(d). This jurisdiction includes supplemental jurisdiction with respect to pendent 

state law claims. 

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District. 

PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff is an individual who was at all relevant times residing in Sand Creek,

Michigan. 

5:15-cv-11526

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 04/27/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 5
5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3), as she is a natural 

person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

6. At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a “debt collector” within the meaning of 

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), in that it held itself out to be a company collecting a consumer debt allegedly 

owed by Plaintiff.

7. The aforementioned alleged debt is a “debt” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(5), in that it is an alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction 

in which the money, property, insurance and/or services which are the subject of the transaction 

were primarily for personal, family and/or household purposes.

8. On information and belief, Defendant is a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania,

which is licensed to do business in Michigan, and which has its principal place of business in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

9. In approximately late February or early March, Defendant caused a collection letter 

to be mailed to Plaintiff in attempt to collect the aforementioned alleged debt.

10. On or around March 4, 2015, Plaintiff placed a telephone call to Defendant and 

informed an employee, agent and/or representative of Defendant that he was represented by a law 

firm with respect to the alleged debt and provided his attorneys’ contact information.

11. On or around March 24, 2015, Defendant caused a collection letter to be mailed to 

Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.

12. In approximately late March or early April, Plaintiff placed a telephone call to 

Defendant and informed an employee, agent and/or representative of Defendant that he was 

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 04/27/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 5
represented by a law firm with respect to the alleged debt and provided his attorneys’ contact 

information.

13. In its attempts to collect the alleged debt as outlined above, Defendant damaged 

Plaintiff and violated the FDCPA.

14. As a result of Defendant’s actions as outlined above, Plaintiff has suffered and 

continues to suffer stress, aggravation, emotional distress and mental anguish.

COUNT I

15. Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 1 

through 14 above as if reiterated herein.

16. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) by communicating with Plaintiff after 

Defendant had been advised that Plaintiff was represented by an attorney with respect to the 

alleged debt.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages suffered as a 

direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

b. Judgment against Defendant for $1,000 in statutory damages for 

Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3); and

d. Any other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 04/27/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 5
COUNT II

17. Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 1 

through 14 above as if reiterated herein.

18. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d by engaging in conduct the natural 

consequence of which was to harass, oppress and/or abuse Plaintiff in connection with the 

collection of the alleged debt.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

a. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages suffered as a 

direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

b. Judgment against Defendant for $1,000 in statutory damages for 

Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3); and

d. Any other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III

19. Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations and statements made in paragraphs 1 

through 14 above as if reiterated herein.

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

to attempt to collect the alleged debt.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 04/27/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 5
a. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages suffered as a 

direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

b. Judgment against Defendant for $1,000 in statutory damages for 

Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3); and

d. Any other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues in this action, except for any issues relating 

to the amount of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to be awarded should Plaintiff prevail on any 

of his claims in this action.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

WARREN OSTRANDER 

By: /s/ Morris B. Lefkowitz

Attorney for Plaintiff

Morris B. Lefkowitz

Michigan Attorney No. P31335

Allen Chern Law, PLLC

24100 Southfield Road

Suite 203

Southfield, MI 48075

Phone: (248) 569-0180

Fax: (248) 559-0175

morrie@lefkowitzlawgroup.com

Case 2:15-cv-11526-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 04/27/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 5