1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

EL PASO DIVISION 

PHIL L. BENNETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, 

Defendant. 

 CIVIL COMPLAINT 

 CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00048 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Phil L. Bennett (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Sulaiman Law 

Group, Ltd. (“Sulaiman”), complaining of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Defendant”) as 

follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act (“FDCPA”) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692, violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227, and violations of the Texas Debt Collection 

Act (“TDCA”) pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §392. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the FDCPA, TCPA, and 28 

U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the action arises under the laws of the United States. Supplemental 

jurisdiction exists for the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 10
2 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Plaintiff resides in the 

Western District of Texas, Defendant conducts business in the Western District of Texas, and 

maintains significant contacts within the Western District of Texas. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person over 18-years-of-age who is a “consumer” as the term is defined 

by 15 U.S.C §1692a(3), and is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(39). 

5. Defendant PRA is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of 

Delaware. PRA uses the mail and telephone for the principal purpose of collecting debts from 

consumers on a nationwide basis, including consumers in the State of Texas. PRA was founded in 

1996 and is one of the nation’s largest debt collectors.1

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

6. Around January 2018, Defendant began placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number, (915) XXX-0730, in an attempt to collect a Merrick Bank account Plaintiff had allegedly 

defaulted on prior to 2018 (“subject debt”). 

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

possessor, and operator of the cellular telephone ending in -0730. 

8. Defendant placed these calls in an attempt to collect the allegedly defaulted subject debt. 

9. Immediately after the calls began, Plaintiff answered a phone call to his cellular telephone 

from Defendant. During this call Plaintiff requested that Defendant not to call him again. 

10. Subsequently, Plaintiff answered numerous calls from Defendant, and in each answered 

call, demanded that Defendant cease its calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

                                                            

1 https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7Pvgj4KD2gIVHLjACh11MAX3EAAYASAAEgL3PvD_BwE 

(Last Viewed July 8, 2019) 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 10
3 

11. Since 2018, Plaintiff has requested that Defendant stop calling his cellular phone ending in 

-0730 no less than 50 times. 

12. Plaintiff’s demands that Defendant’s phone calls cease were ignored and Defendant 

continued its phone harassment campaign. 

13. Around October 2018, Plaintiff obtained a new telephone number, (915) XXX-0946 due 

to Defendant’s harassing behavior. 

14. Plaintiff never provided his cellular telephone number ending in -0946 to Defendant. 

15. Despite Plaintiff obtaining a new cellular telephone number, Defendant continued its phone 

harassment campaign.2

16. In total, Defendant placed or caused to be placed numerous harassing phone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephones ending in -0730 and -0946 from 2018 through the present day. 

17. Moreover, in the phone calls Plaintiff answered, Plaintiff heard a pause and what sounds 

to be call center noise in the background of Defendant’s calls. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephones 

ending in -0730 and -0946 using an automated telephone dialing system, a telephone dialing 

system that is commonly used in the debt collection industry to collect defaulted debts. 

19. The phone numbers that Defendant most often uses to contact Plaintiff are (915) 206-4812, 

(757) 512-5299, (505) 240-8131, (304) 202-4828, (866) 453-8025, (915) 209-4863, (580) 262-

6957, (630) 256-8591, (405) 256-1045, (325) 284-3753, (620) 277-9011, (480) 327-6789, (866) 

321-8170, (630) 214-1292, and (866) 322-7104 but upon information and belief, it may have used 

other phone numbers to place calls to Plaintiff’s phone. 

DAMAGES

                                                            

2 Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in -0946 through the skip-tracing 

process.

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 10
4 

20. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from emotional distress, depression, mental 

anguish, and anxiety as a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful collection practices. 

21. Defendant’s harassing phone calls have severely disrupted Plaintiff’s daily life and general 

well-being. 

22. Defendant’s phone harassment campaign and illegal collection activities have caused 

Plaintiff actual harm, including but not limited to, invasion of privacy, nuisance, intrusion upon 

and occupation of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone capacity, wasting Plaintiff’s time, the increased 

risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the phone calls, aggravation that 

accompanies unsolicited telephone calls, emotional distress, mental anguish, anxiety, loss of 

concentration, diminished value and utility of telephone equipment and telephone subscription 

services, the loss of battery charge, and the per-kilowatt electricity costs required to recharge his 

cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of his telephone services. 

23. In addition, each time Defendant placed a telephone call to Plaintiff, Defendant occupied 

Plaintiff’s telephone number such that Plaintiff was unable to receive other phone calls. 

24. Concerned about the violations of his rights and invasion of his privacy, Plaintiff was 

forced to seek the assistance of counsel to file this action to compel Defendant to cease its unlawful 

conduct. 

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

25. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein. 

26. Defendant repeatedly placed or caused to be placed frequent non-emergency calls, 

including but not limited to the calls referenced above, to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an 

automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) without his prior consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. 

§227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 4 of 10
5 

27. The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity...to store or produce 

telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such 

numbers.” 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1). 

28. Based on the lack of prompt human response during the phone calls in which Plaintiff 

answered, Defendant used an ATDS to place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

29. Defendant violated the TCPA by placing numerous harassing phone calls to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone from 2018 through the present day, using an ATDS without his prior consent. 

30. Any prior consent, if any, was revoked by Plaintiff’s numerous verbal revocations. 

31. As pled above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s collection calls to his cellular 

phone. 

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no system in place to document and archive 

whether it has prior consent to contact consumers on their cellular phones. 

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew its collection practices were in violation of 

the TCPA, yet continued to employ them to increase profits at Plaintiff’s expense. 

34. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, subsidiaries, and/or employees acting 

within the scope of their authority acted intentionally in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

35. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for a minimum of 

$500 per call. Moreover, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C), Defendant’s willful and knowing 

violations of the TCPA should trigger this Honorable Court’s ability to triple the damages to which 

Plaintiff is otherwise entitled to under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C). 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 5 of 10
6 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PHIL L. BENNETT, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

enter judgment in his favor as follows: 

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

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff damages of at least $500.00 per phone call and treble damages 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(3)(B)&(C); 

c. Enjoining Defendant from contacting Plaintiff; and 

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

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

36. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein. 

37. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by FDCPA §1692a(3). 

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

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

39. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by §1692a(6) because it’s a business, the 

principal purpose of which, is the collection of defaulted debts and uses the mail and/or the 

telephones to collect delinquent accounts allegedly owed to a third party. 

40. Moreover, Defendant is a “debt collector” because it acquired rights to the subject debt 

after it was in default. 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

41. Defendant used the phone to attempt to collect the subject debt and, as such, engaged in 

“communications” as defined in FDCPA §1692a(2). 

42. Defendant’s communications to Plaintiff were made in connection with the collection of 

the subject debt. 

43. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692c(a)(1), d, and d(5), through its unlawful debt 

collection practices. 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 6 of 10
7 

a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692c 

44. Defendant violated §1692c(a)(1) when it continuously called Plaintiff after being notified 

to stop on multiple occasions. This repeated behavior of systematically calling Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone over and over after he demanded that it cease contacting him was harassing and abusive. 

Even after being told to stop contacting him, Defendant continued its onslaught of phone calls with 

the specific goal of oppressing and abusing Plaintiff into paying the subject debt. 

45. Furthermore, Defendant has relentlessly called Plaintiff on multiple occasions despite 

Plaintiff obtaining a new cellular telephone number. This volume of calls shows that Defendant 

willfully ignored Plaintiff’s pleas with the goal of annoying and harassing him into submission. 

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

knew that its conduct was inconvenient and distressing to him. 

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692d 

47. Defendant violated §1692d by engaging in abusive, harassing, and oppressive conduct by 

relentlessly calling Plaintiff’s cellular phone seeking immediate payment on the subject debt. 

Moreover, Defendant continued placing the relentless calls after Plaintiff demanded that the calls 

cease on numerous occasions. 

48. Defendant violated §1692d(5) by causing Plaintiff’s cellular phone to ring repeatedly and 

continuously in an attempt to engage Plaintiff in conversations regarding the collection of the 

subject debt with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant placed or 

caused to be placed numerous harassing phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from 2018 

through the present day, using an ATDS without his prior consent. 

49. As an experienced debt collector, Defendant knew or should have known the ramifications 

of collecting on a debt through incessant harassing phone calls to the cellular phones of consumers. 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 7 of 10
8 

50. Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically attempts to collect debts through 

harassing conduct and has no procedures in place to assure compliance with the FDCPA. 

51. As stated above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PHIL L. BENNETT respectfully requests that this Honorable Court: 

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

aforementioned statute; 

b. Award Plaintiff statutory and actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, 

for the underlying FDCPA violations; 

c. Award Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k; and 

d. Award any other relief as the Honorable Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DEBT COLLECTION ACT

52. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as though fully set forth herein. 

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

54. Defendant is a “debt collector” and a “third party debt collector” as defined by Tex. Fin. 

Code Ann. § 392.001(6) and (7). 

55. 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 

56. 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.” 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 8 of 10
9 

57. Defendant violated the TDCA when it continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone after he 

notified it to stop calling. This repeated behavior of systematically calling Plaintiff’s phone despite 

his demands was oppressive, harassing, and abusive. The repeated contacts were made with the 

hope that Plaintiff would succumb to the harassing behavior and ultimately make a payment. The 

frequency and volume of calls shows that Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiff’s pleas with the 

intent of annoying and harassing him. 

58. Furthermore, Defendant relentlessly contacted Plaintiff despite Plaintiff obtaining a new 

cellular telephone number. Placing such voluminous calls constitutes conduct causing a telephone 

to ring repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse, and harass Plaintiff into making 

payment in violation of the TDCA. 

59. Upon being told to stop calling, Defendant had ample reason to be aware that it should 

cease its harassing campaign of collection phone calls. Nevertheless, Defendant consciously chose 

to continue placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PHIL L. BENNETT, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

enter judgment in his favor as follows: 

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

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

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

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

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

underlying violations; 

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

392.403(b); 

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

Plaintiff demands trial by jury. 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 9 of 10
10 

Dated: February 19, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Alexander J. Taylor 

/s/ Marwan R. Daher 

/s/ Omar T. Sulaiman 

 Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. 

Marwan R. Daher, Esq. 

Omar T. Sulaiman, Esq. 

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd 

 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 

 Lombard, IL 60148 

 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 

 ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com 

mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com 

osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case 3:20-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/19/20 Page 10 of 10