1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

EL PASO DIVISION 

IVONNE MENDOZA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., 

 Defendant. 

CIVIL COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00024 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT 

 NOW comes IVONNE MENDOZA (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, Sulaiman 

Law Group, Ltd. (“Sulaiman”), complaining as to the conduct of MIDLAND CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT, INC. (“Defendant”), as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”) under 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”) under 

Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392 et seq., for Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the FDCPA. Subject matter jurisdiction 

is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C §1692, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the action arises 

under the laws of the United States. Supplemental jurisdiction exists for Plaintiff’s state law claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 1 of 9
2 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Defendant conducts business 

in the Western District of Texas and a substantial amount of the events and omissions that gave 

rise to Plaintiff’s cause of action occurred within the Western District of Texas.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a consumer over 18 years-of-age residing in El Paso County, Texas, which is 

within the Western District of Texas. 

5. As reflected on its website, Defendant is a self-proclaimed debt collector.1 Defendant is a 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kansas, with its principal place of business is 

located at 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 1300, San Diego, California. 

6. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, 

successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives and insurers at all 

times relevant to the instant action. 

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

7. The instant action arises out of Defendant’s attempts to collect upon a defaulted credit card 

debt (“subject debt”) that Plaintiff purportedly owed to Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Credit One”). 

8. Plaintiff incurred the subject debt in order to purchase personal and other consumer goods 

and/or services. 

9. Around the fall of 2019, Plaintiff began receiving calls to her cellular phone, (915) XXX9192, from Defendant. 

10. At all times relevant to the instant action, Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, owner, and 

operator of the cellular phone ending in -9192. Plaintiff is and always has been financially 

responsible for the cellular phone and its services. 

 

1

 https://www.midlandcreditonline.com/who-is-mcm/ 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 2 of 9
3 

11. Defendant has used several numbers when placing collection calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone, including but not limited to: (858) 251-6649, (800) 305-2252, (623) 223-9852, (480) 448-

3777, (480) 504-6540, (877) 434-3794, (602) 362-4193, (888) 405-9988, (947) 204-5310, (858) 

505-1237, and (800) 215-2113. 

12. Upon information and belief, the above-referenced phone numbers are regularly utilized 

by Defendant during its debt collection activities. 

13. During answered calls, Plaintiff was subjected to a noticeable pause, having to say “hello” 

several times, before being connected to a live representative. 

14. Upon speaking with Defendant, Plaintiff was informed that it is acting as a debt collector 

attempting to collect upon the subject debt. 

15. Defendant’s harassing collection campaign caused Plaintiff to demand that Defendant 

cease calling her. 

16. Defendant has continued placing collection calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone through the 

filing of the instant action. 

17. Despite Defendant lacking permission to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone, Defendant still 

placed not less than 25 phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone. 

18. Moreover, Plaintiff has not received any information and/or correspondence from 

Defendant regarding the subject debt since Defendant began its collection campaign. 

19. Frustrated over Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff spoke with Sulaiman regarding her rights, 

resulting in expenses. 

20. Plaintiff has been unfairly and unnecessarily harassed by Defendant's actions. 

21. Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, including but not 

limited to, invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies collection telephone calls from debt 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 3 of 9
4 

collectors, emotional distress, increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction 

caused by the never-ending calls, increased usage of her telephone services, loss of cellular phone 

capacity, diminished cellular phone functionality, decreased battery life on her cellular phone, 

and diminished space for data storage on her cellular phone. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

22. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 21 as though full set forth herein. 

23. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) of the FDCPA. 

24. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by §1692a(6) of the FDCPA, because it regularly 

uses the mail and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer accounts. 

25. Defendant is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect, directly or 

indirectly, defaulted debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to others. 

26. The subject debt is a “debt” as defined by FDCPA §1692a(5) as it arises out of a transaction 

due or asserted to be due to another for personal, family, or household purposes. 

a. Violations of FDCPA §1692c and §1692d 

27. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692d, prohibits a debt collector from 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.” §1692d(5) further prohibits, “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.” 

28. Defendant violated §1692c(a)(1), d, and d(5) when it continuously called Plaintiff after 

being notified to stop. Defendant called Plaintiff at least 25 times after she demanded that it stop. 

This repeated behavior of systematically calling Plaintiff’s phone in spite of this information was 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 4 of 9
5 

harassing and abusive. The frequency and nature of calls shows that Defendant willfully ignored 

Plaintiff’s pleas with the goal of annoying and harassing Plaintiff. 

29. Defendant was notified by Plaintiff that its calls were not welcomed. As such, Defendant 

knew that its conduct was inconvenient and harassing to Plaintiff. 

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692e 

30. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692e, prohibits a debt collector from using “any 

false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt.” 

31. In addition, this section enumerates specific violations, such as: 

“The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to 

collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.” 15 U.S.C. 

§1692e(10). 

32. Defendant violated §1692e and e(10) when it used deceptive means to collect and/or 

attempt to collect the subject debt. In spite of the fact that Plaintiff demanded that Defendant stop 

contacting her, Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff via automated calls. Instead of putting an 

end to this harassing behavior, Defendant systematically placed calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone 

in a deceptive attempt to force her to answer its calls and ultimately make a payment. Through its 

conduct, Defendant misleadingly represented to Plaintiff that it had the legal ability to contact her 

via an automated system when it no longer had consent to do so. 

c. Violations of FDCPA § 1692f 

33. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692f, prohibits a debt collector from using “unfair 

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

34. Defendant violated §1692f when it unfairly and unconscionably attempted to collect on a 

debt by continuously calling Plaintiff at least 25 times after being notified to stop. Attempting to 

coerce Plaintiff into payment by placing voluminous phone calls without her permission is unfair 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 5 of 9
6 

and unconscionable behavior. These means employed by Defendant only served to worry and 

confuse Plaintiff. 

d. Violations of FDCPA § 1692g 

35. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) requires a debt collector to, “[w]ithin five 

days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt 

. . . send the consumer a written notice containing” several pieces of information, including: “(1) 

the amount of the debt; (2) the name [of the original creditor]; (3) a statement [regarding disputing 

the debt within 30 days]; (4) a statement [outlining what happens if a consumer disputes a debt]; 

and (5) a statement that, upon written request . . . the debt collector will provide the consumer with 

the name and address of the original creditor . . . .” 

36. Defendant violated § 1692g by failing to provide the written information required within 

five days after the respective initial communication with Plaintiff. 

37. As pled in paragraphs 19 through 21, Plaintiff has been harmed and suffered damages as a 

result of Defendant’s illegal actions. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, IVONNE MENDOZA, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor as follows: 

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned bodies of law; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages of $1,000.00 as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, as provided 

under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(3); 

a. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff seeking payment of the subject 

debt; and 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 6 of 9
7 

e. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DEBT COLLECTION ACT

38. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully set forth herein. 

39. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.001(1). 

40. Defendant is a “[t]hird-party debt collector” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 

392.001(7). 

41. The subject debt is a “consumer debt” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.001(2) as 

it is an obligation, or alleged obligation, arising from a transaction for personal, family, or 

household purposes. 

a. Violations of TDCA § 392.302 

42. The TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.302(4), states that “a debt collector may 

not oppress, harass, or abuse a person by causing a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, 

or making repeated or continuous telephone calls, with the intent to harass a person at the called 

number.” 

43. Defendant violated the TDCA when it continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone at least 

25 times after she notified it to stop calling. The repeated contacts were made with the hope that 

Plaintiff would succumb to the harassing behavior and ultimately submit a payment. Rather than 

understanding Plaintiff’s situation and abiding by her wishes, Defendant continued in its harassing 

campaign of phone calls in hopes of extracting payment. 

44. Upon being told to stop calling, Defendant had ample reason to be aware that it should not 

continue its harassing calling campaign. Yet, Defendant consciously chose to continue placing 

systematic calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone knowing that its conduct was unwelcome. 

b. Violations of TDCA § 392.304 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 7 of 9
8 

45. The TDCA, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.304(19) prohibits a debt collector from 

“using any . . . false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information 

concerning a consumer.” 

46. Defendant violated the TDCA through the implicit misrepresentations made on phone calls 

placed to Plaintiff’s cellular phone. Through its conduct, Defendant misleadingly represented to 

Plaintiff that it had the lawful ability to continue contacting her cellular phone using an automated 

system absent her consent. Such lawful ability was revoked upon Plaintiff demanding that 

Defendant stop calling her cellular phone, illustrating the deceptive nature of Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, IVONNE MENDOZA, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor as follows: 

b. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

c. Entitling Plaintiff to injunctive relief pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(1); 

d. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(2); 

e. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, for the 

underlying violations; 

f. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 

392.403(b); 

g. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff seeking payment of the subject 

debt; and 

h. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

Dated: January 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

s/ Nathan C. Volheim s/Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis 

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. #6302103 Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq. #6319225 

 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Plaintiff 

Admitted in the Western District of Texas Admitted in the Western District of Texas 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 8 of 9
9 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 Lombard, Illinois 60148 

(630) 568-3056 (phone) (630) 581-5858 (phone) 

(630) 575-8188 (fax) (630) 575-8188 (fax) 

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com thatz@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 1 Filed 01/26/20 Page 9 of 9