PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LANCE BILBERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00470

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, LANCE BILBERRY (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, 

KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C., alleges the following against JPMORGAN 

CHASE BANK, N.A. (“Defendant”): 

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”) and the Texas Business and Commerce 

Code Section 305.053.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court’s jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which 

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

grants this Court original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the laws of 

the United States. See Mims v. Arrow Fin. Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 747, 

181 L. Ed. 2d 881 (2012).

3. Supplemental jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s related state law claims 

arises under 28 U.S.C. §1367.

4. Defendant conducts business in the State of Texas therefore personal 

jurisdiction is established.

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

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Austin, Texas.

7. Plaintiff is a “person” as that term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).

8. Defendant is a company with its principal place of business located 

at 200 Ottawa Avenue N.W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503.

9. Defendant is a “person” as that term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 

153(39).

10. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, 

directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, 

representatives, and insurers.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff has a cellular telephone number.

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12. Plaintiff has only used this number as a cellular telephone number.

13. Defendant placed repeated harassing telephone calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number.

14. Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone numbers including, but not 

limited to, 847-426-9203.

15. When contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, Defendant used 

an automatic telephone dialing system and/or pre-recorded or artificial voice.

16. Plaintiff knew Defendant was using an automatic telephone dialing 

system and/or pre-recorded or artificial voice as calls would begin with a 

noticeable delay or silence with no caller on the line before a live representative 

would come on the phone or the call would terminate.

17. Defendant’s calls were not for emergency purposes. 

18. Shortly after calls started, Plaintiff first told the Defendant to stop 

calling him.

19. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s request to stop calling and continued to 

call him repeatedly.

20. Plaintiff found Defendant’s repeated calls to be frustrating, annoying, 

harassing, invasive, and upsetting.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant conducts business in a 

manner which violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COUNT I

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE TCPA

22. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same 

were set forth at length herein. 

23. Defendant initiated automated calls to Plaintiff using an automatic 

telephone dialing system and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice.

24. Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff were not made for “emergency 

purposes.”

25. After Defendant was told to stop calling, Defendant knew or should 

have known it did not have consent to call and/or that any consent it thought it had 

was revoked.

26. The acts and/or omissions of Defendant were done unfairly, 

unlawfully, intentionally, deceptively, fraudulently, and absent bona fide error, 

lawful right, legal defense, legal justification, or legal excuse.

27. As a result of the above violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff has suffered 

the losses and damages as set forth above entitling Plaintiff to an award of 

statutory, actual, and treble damages. 

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COUNT II

TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE SECTION 305

CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA BY 

USING AN AUTOMATED DIALER

28. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same 

were set forth therein.

29. The conduct of Defendant in causing repeated telephone calls to be 

made by an automatic telephone dialing system to the cell phone number of 

Plaintiff constitutes multiple violations of the TCPA.

30. These violations create a private cause of action under Texas law for 

civil liability that is properly enforced as a State cause of action under Section 

305.053 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

31. As a result of the above violations of the Texas Business and 

Commerce Code, Plaintiff has suffered the losses and damages as set forth above, 

entitling Plaintiff to an award of statutory damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LANCE BILBERRY respectfully prays for 

judgment as follows:

a. All actual damages suffered pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(A) and the Texas Business and Commerce Code 

§305.053(b)(2);

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

b. Statutory damages of $500.00 per violative telephone call 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and the Texas Business and 

Commerce Code §305.053(b)(1);

c. Treble damages of $1,500.00 per violative telephone call 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and the Texas Business and 

Commerce Code §305.053(c)(1);

d. Injunctive relief pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and the Texas 

Business and Commerce Code §305.053(a)(1);

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff LANCE BILBERRY, demands a 

jury trial in this case.

Dated: 5/01/2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Amy L. Bennecoff Ginsburg

Amy L. Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.

30 East Butler Pike

Ambler, PA 19002

Tel: 215-540-8888

Fax: 877-600-2112

Email: aginsburg@creditlaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-00470-RP Document 1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 6