IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TONITA THOMPSON, 

individually and on behalf 

of similarly situated individuals, 

Case No. 15-11281

Plaintiff,

v.

LVNV FUNDING LLC; and TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

J.C. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES,

INC.,

CLASS ACTION

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Tonita Thompson brings this action individually and on 

behalf of a class of similarly situated persons against Defendants LVNV Funding 

LLC and J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.

2. Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”) in impermissibly attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was

barred by the Michigan six (6) year statute of limitations using collection letters 

using the phrase “we have been authorized to negotiate GENEROUS 

SETTLEMENT TERMS.”

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1
2

3. Defendants violated the FDCPA by impermissibly attempting to 

collect interest to which it was not entitled to collect on charged off HSBC Bank 

Nevada N.A. accounts. See Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 770 F.3d 

443 (6th Cir. 2014); See also McDonald v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 296 F.R.D. 513 

(E.D. Mich. 2013).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal 

Question), 15 U.S.C. §1692k and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a) over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the Michigan Collection Practices 

Act as they are so related and arise under a common nucleus of operative facts of 

Plaintiff’s federal claims under the FDCPA.

5. Venue and personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this District is 

proper because:

a. Plaintiff resides in the District;

b. Defendants collection attempts were directed to Plaintiff within the 

District; and

c. The subject collection letters have an address of PO Box 1952, 

Southgate, MI 48195-0952.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides within the District.

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 2
3

7. LVNV Funding, LLC is a limited liability company chartered under 

Delaware law and its registered agent in the State of Michigan is CSC-Lawyers 

Incorporating Service (Company), 601 Abbot Road, East Lansing, MI 48823. 

8. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., is a corporation charted under 

Minnesota law and its registered agent in the State of Michigan is The Corporation 

Company, 30600 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 2345, Bingham Farms, MI 48025.

9. Defendants, each, are a “debt collector” under the FDCPA in that it 

attempts to collect debts purchased from original creditors that are in default.

10. LVNV is a “regulated person” as the term in used and defined in the 

Michigan Collection Practices Act. 

11. J.C. is a “collection agency” as the term in used and defined in the 

Michigan Collection Practices Act.

FACTS

12. Plaintiff incurred debts for personal, family or household purposes, 

and subsequently defaulted on her obligations.

13. On information and belief, LVNV purchased two of Plaintiff’s debts

in one or more portfolios of similar debts at pennies on the dollar. 

14. LVNV attempted to collect two debts Plaintiff was in default on.

15. J.C. attempted to collect two debts Plaintiff was in default on.

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 3
4

16. As part of Defendant’s attempt to collect a debt on an account ending 

with 5739 from Plaintiff, Plaintiff was sent a letter dated April 3, 2014, a redacted 

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

17. Exhibit A in part states, “we have been authorized to negotiate 

GENEROUS SETTLEMENT TERMS.” Exhibit A.

18. Exhibit A in part states, “outstanding account balance.” Exhibit A.

19. As part of Defendant’s attempt to collect a debt on an account ending 

with 5217 from Plaintiff, Plaintiff was sent a letter dated August 8, 2014, a 

redacted copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

20. Exhibit B in part states, “we have been authorized to negotiate 

GENEROUS SETTLEMENT TERMS.” Exhibit B.

21. Exhibit A in part states, “outstanding account balance.” Exhibit B

22. Exhibit A and Exhibit B are for different debts, but the original 

creditor of both debts is HSBC Bank Nevada N.A.

23. According to Credit Karma the date of Plaintiff’s last payment on the 

debt in Exhibit A was May 23, 2008.

24. According to Credit Karma the date of Plaintiff’s last payment on the 

debt in Exhibit B was May 23, 2008.

25. An unsophisticated consumer reading a letter in the form of Exhibit A 

or Exhibit B could have been lead to believe that their debt was legally enforceable. 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 4
5

26. The debt reflected in Exhibit A has been in default for more than six 

years.

27. Defendants knew or should have known that the debt reflected in 

Exhibit A was time barred.

28. According to Experian, LVNV was reporting on Plaintiff’s consumer 

report the debts reflected in Exhibit A and B.

29. It is unlikely that LVNV lacked any knowledge of the age of 

Plaintiff’s debt in Exhibit A and Exhibit B that it sought to collect. 

30. When attempting to collect a time barred debt, debt collectors should 

state in their collection letters, “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. 

Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it.” See e.g. United States 

of America v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182-T27EAJ, Doc. 5, Consent 

Decree (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012); Theodore (Ted) J. Greeley, Rob M. Horwitz, 

The Sixth Circuit Rules That Statute –of-Limitations Disclosures Could Help 

Consumers and Limits the Ability to Defeat Letter Claims With Early Motions 

(Jan. 16, 2015) available at http://www.cfs-lawblog.com/Court-Rules-DisclosuresDefeat-FDCPA-Early-Motions (“Debt collectors should thus give serious thought 

to eliminating the word ‘settlement’ from their vocabulary unless they have 

actually filed a lawsuit against the consumer.”)

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 5
6

31. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has found that nondisclosure 

of the fact that a debt is time-barred might deceive a consumer in at least two 

ways: first, because most consumers do not know or understand their legal rights 

with respect to the collection of time-barred debt, attempts to collect on such debt 

may create a misleading impression that the consumer has no defense to a lawsuit; 

and second, consumers often do not know that in many states the making of a 

partial payment on a stale debt actually revives the entire debt even if it was 

otherwise time-barred. 

32. Given the potential for confusion, and to avoid creating a misleading 

impression, the FTC recommended that if a collector knows or should know that it 

is collecting on a time-barred debt, it must inform the consumer that (1) the 

collector cannot sue to collect the debt, and (2) providing partial payment would 

revive the collector's ability to sue to collect the remaining balance. 

33. Most consumers do not understand their legal rights with respect to 

time-barred debts. 

34. The use of the phrase “we have been authorized to negotiate 

GENEROUS SETTLEMENT TERMS” to the unsophisticated consumer is a 

phrase used in a civil lawsuit to describe a communication from one party to the 

other suggesting a settlement – an agreement to end the lawsuit before a judgment 

is rendered.

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 6
7

COUNT I 

35. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-34 above herein.

36. 15 U.S.C § 1692e, in pertinent part, provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the 

following conduct is a violation of this section:

* * *

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. . . .

* * *

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or

that is not intended to be taken. . . .

* * *

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to 

collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information 

concerning a consumer.

37. 15 U.S.C § 1692f provides in part that, “A debt collector may not use 

unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

38. Michigan’s statute of limitations applicable to the debts in Exhibit A 

and Exhibit B is 6 years. 

39. Defendants attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff that was barred 

by the Michigan Statute of Limitations.

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 7
8

40. Defendants were attempting to collect an amount within the unpaid 

balance listed in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, that was comprised of an amount of

interest to which it was not entitled to collect as the account had been charged off 

and the original creditor stopped sending Plaintiff monthly billing statements. The 

violation of law here is similar to that alleged in McDonald v. Asset Acceptance, 

LLC, 296 F.R.D. 513 (E.D. Mich. 2013), which granted summary judgment in the 

plaintiffs’ favor. 

41. On information and belief, hundreds of the class members who 

received a letter in the form of Exhibit A or Exhibit B or where Defendants were

attempting to collect an amount of impermissible interest made a payment to Asset 

Acceptance, thereby suffering actual damages.

42. Exhibit A and Exhibit B violates 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 e(2)(A),(5),(10), 

and 1692f. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

43. The Statute of Limitations Class consists of: All individuals with a 

Michigan address who were sent a letter, and the letter was not returned, in the 

form of Exhibit A or Exhibit B without containing language, “The law limits how 

long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue 

you for it”, from April 3, 2014 to April 23, 2015, where the date of last payment 

was more than six years prior to the sending of the letter. 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 8
9

44. The Improper Interest Class consists of: All individuals with a 

Michigan address who were sent a collection letter by LVNV or on LVNV’s behalf, 

and the letter was not returned, where LVNV purchased a debt originating with 

HSBC Bank Nevada N.A, where the collection letter included an amount of 

interest which was added post charge off in the balance, at any time from April 3, 

2014 to April 23, 2015.

45. On information and belief, each class is so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impractical. 

46. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 

persons of each class. 

47. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and subclass 

that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. 

48. The predominant common question to the Statute of Limitations Class 

is whether Defendants violated the FDCPA when it attempt to collect a time barred 

debt using the phrase, “we have been authorized to negotiate GENEROUS 

SETTLEMENT TERMS” and did not inform the debtor that, “The law limits how 

long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue 

you for it.”

49. The predominant common question to the Improper Interest Class is 

whether Defendants violated the FDCPA when they attempted to collect an 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 9
10

improper amount of interest on an account HSBC Bank Nevada N.A account that 

was charged off.

50. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class. 

51. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions 

and claims involving unlawful business practices. 

52. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff, each of the classes and against Defendant for, statutory damages, actual 

damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

COUNT II

53. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-34 above herein.

54. “The FDCPA contains language that is very similar to that found in 

the MCPA.” Gamby v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 462 Fed. Appx. 552, 556 n.5 (6th 

Cir. 2012) (unpublished).

55. Plaintiff’s MCPA class claims here mirror Plaintiff’s FDCPA class 

claims.

56. “[I]n the absence of any such circumstance [set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(c)], it does not appear that a court would be authorized—let alone required—

to decline to exercise jurisdiction.” Hucul Advertising, LLC v. Charter Twp. Of 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 10
11

Gains, 748 F.3d 273, 281 (6th Cir. 2014). No set of circumstances set forth in 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(c) exist here. 

57. MCL 445.252(e) prohibits a regulated person from “[m]aking an 

inaccurate, misleading, untrue, or deceptive statement or claim in a communication 

to collect a debt[.]”

58. MCL 445.252(f) and its respective subsections prohibit a regulated 

person and a collection agency from misrepresenting the legal action being 

threatened and from misrepresenting the legal rights of the creditor.

59. Defendants violated MCL 445.252(e) and MCL 445.252(f).

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

60. The Statute of Limitations Class consists of: All individuals with a 

Michigan address who were sent a letter, and the letter was not returned, in the 

form of Exhibit A or Exhibit B without containing language, “The law limits how 

long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue 

you for it”, from April 3, 2009 to April 23, 2015, where the date of last payment 

was more than six years prior to the sending of the letter. 

61. The Improper Interest Class consists of: All individuals with a 

Michigan address who were sent a collection letter by LVNV or on LVNV’s behalf, 

where LVNV purchased a debt originating with HSBC Bank Nevada N.A, where 

the collection letter included an amount of interest which was added post charge 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 11
12

off, and sought to collect that added interest at any time from April 3, 2009 to 

April 23, 2015.

62. On information and belief, each class is so numerous that joinder of 

all members is impractical. 

63. Plaintiff alleges that there are more than 40 persons of each class. 

64. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and subclass 

that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. 

65. The predominant common question to the Statute of Limitations Class 

is whether Defendants violated the MCPA when it attempt to collect a time barred 

debt using the phrase, “we have been authorized to negotiate GENEROUS 

SETTLEMENT TERMS” and did not inform the debtor that, “The law limits how 

long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue 

you for it.”

66. The predominant common question to the Improper Interest Class is 

whether Defendants violated the MCPA when they attempted to collect an 

improper amount of interest on an account HSBC Bank Nevada N.A account that 

was charged off.

67. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of each class. 

68. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions 

and claims involving unlawful business practices. 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 12
13

69. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and against Defendants for statutory damages, trebled if Defendants’ 

conduct is found to be willful, injunctive relief barring Defendants’ practices 

complained of, attorney’s fees and costs of suit as allowed by the MCPA.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Curtis C. Warner

 Curtis C. Warner 

WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 

Curtis C. Warner (P59915)

350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300

Park Ridge, IL 60068

(847) 701-5290

cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC

John A. Evanchek (P66157)

43695 Michigan Ave.

Canton, MI 48188

(734) 397-4540

john@kelawpc.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Curtis C. Warner

 Curtis C. Warner 

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 13
14

WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 

Curtis C. Warner (P59915)

350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300

Park Ridge, IL 60068

(847) 701-5290

cwarner@warnerlawllc.com

KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC

John A. Evanchek (P66157)

43695 Michigan Ave.

Canton, MI 48188

(734) 397-4540

john@kelawpc.com

2:15-cv-11281-MFL-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/15 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 14