UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SHAUN KOTLARSKY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR 

JURY TRIAL 

(Unlawful Debt Collection Practices)

COMPLAINT

SHAUN KOTLARSKY (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C., 

alleges the following against CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC. (“Defendant”): 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unlawful debt 

collection practices. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. Jurisdiction of this court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), which states that 

such actions may be brought and heard before “any appropriate United States district court 

without regard to the amount in controversy,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants this court original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of the United States. 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 6
3. Defendants conduct business in the State of Michigan, and therefore, personal 

jurisdiction is established. 

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Waterford, Michigan 48329. 

6. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

7. Defendant is a debt collection company with headquarters located at 800 South 

West 39th Street Renton, Washington 98057. 

8. At all relevant times, Defendant acted as a “debt collector” within the meaning of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6) and attempted to collect a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(5). 

9. Defendants acted through their agents, employees, officers, members, directors, 

heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs in an attempt to collect 

an alleged consumer debt. 

11. Beginning in or around February 2015 and continuing through March 2015 

Defendant placed repeated harassing telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone in its 

attempts to collect an alleged debt,. 

12. Defendant’s collectors called Plaintiff from telephone numbers including, but not 

limited to, (877) 495-0400. The undersigned has confirmed that this number belongs to 

Defendant. 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 6
13. The debt that Defendant was trying to collect was seventeen (17) years old. 

14. Plaintiff told Defendant that the statute of limitations on the debt had expired and 

Plaintiff told Defendant to stop calling him, but Defendant continued to call Plaintiff. 

15. Despite this request, Defendant continued to call. 

16. Once Defendant was aware that its calls were unwanted, any continued calls could 

only have been for the purpose of harassment. 

17. Defendant also called Plaintiff’s mother and disclosed to her that they were attempt 

to collect on a credit card debt. 

18. Defendant’s actions as described herein were made with the intent to harass, abuse 

and coerce payment from Plaintiff for a debt he does not owe. 

COUNT I 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED § 1692b(2) OF THE FDCPA

19. A debt collector violates § 1692b(2) when in communicating with any person other 

that the consumer for the purpose of acquiring location information about the consumer, it states 

that such consumer owes any debt. 

20. Defendant violated § 1692b(2) when it called Plaintiff’s mother and disclosed that 

they were trying to collect a credit card debt from him. 

COUNT II 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED § 1692c(b) OF THE FDCPA

21. A debt collector violates § 1692c(b) when without the prior consent of the consumer 

given directly to the debt collector it communicates with any person other than the consumer in 

connection with the collection a debt. 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 6
22. Defendant violated § 1692c(b) when it communicated with Plaintiff’s mother in 

connection with the collection of the alleged debt. 

COUNT III 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED §§ 1692d OF THE FDCPA

23. A debt collector violates § 1692d by engaging in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the 

collection of a debt. 

24. Defendant violated § 1692d when it placed repeated and continuous harassing 

telephone calls to Plaintiff and when it continued calling Plaintiff’s cellular phone after knowing 

its calls were unwanted. 

COUNT IV 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED §§ 1692d(5) OF THE FDCPA

25. A debt collector violates § 1692d(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. 

26. Defendant violated § 1692d(5) when it placed repeated and continuous harassing 

telephone calls to Plaintiff. 

COUNT V 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED §§ 1692e OF THE FDCPA

27. A debt collector violates § 1692e when it uses false, deceptive, or misleading 

representations or means in the connection with the collection of any debt. 

28. Defendant violated § 1692e when it tried to collect a debt from Plaintiff for which 

the statute of limitations had expired and upon which Defendant had no right to collect. 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 6
COUNT VI 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED §§ 1692e(2)(A) OF THE FDCPA

29. A debt collector violates § 1692e(2)(A) when in connection with the collection of a 

debt it falsely represents the character, amount or legal status of any debt. 

30. Defendant violated § 1692e(2)(A) when it falsely represented to Plaintiff that it 

could collect on a debt for which the statute of limitations had expired. 

COUNT VII 

DEFENDANTS VIOLATED §§ 1692f OF THE FDCPA

31. A debt collector violates § by using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt. 

32. Defendant violated § 1692f when it continued to call Plaintiff after Plaintiff had 

informed them that the statute of limitations had expired and that its calls were unwanted, and 

generally when it used unfair and unconscionable means to collect the alleged debt. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SHAUN KOTLARSKY, respectfully prays for a judgment as 

follows: 

a. All actual damages suffered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); 

b. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 for the violation of the FDCPA pursuant to 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. All reasonable attorneys’ fees, witness fees, court costs and other litigation 

costs incurred by Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693k(a)(3); 

 d. Any other relief deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court. 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 6
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, SHAUN KOTLARSKY, demands a jury trial in 

this case. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

DATED: May 29, 2015 KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 

By: /s/ Amy L. Bennecoff Ginsburg 

Amy L. Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esquire 

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. 

30 East Butler Pike 

Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 

Phone: (215) 540-8888 

Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 

Email: aginsburg@creditlaw.com 

Case 2:15-cv-11940-VAR-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/29/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 6