IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

KIMBERLY M. SHELTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITIBANK, N.A. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-00730

APPENDIX 

Reference Document Name 

Exhibit A Index of State Court Action Documents 

Exhibit B Documents Filed in State Court Action 

Exhibit B-1 Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

Exhibit B-2 Citation issued to Defendant Citibank, N.A. 

Exhibit B-3 Return of Service 

Exhibit B-4 Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Original Answer 

Exhibit C Certificate of Interested Persons 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 52 PageID 6
EXHIBIT “A” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 52 PageID 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

KIMBERLY M. SHELTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITIBANK, N.A. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-00730

INDEX OF STATE COURT ACTION DOCUMENTS 

Date Filed in State 

Court Action 

Document Name 

February 8, 2022 Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

February 8, 2022 Citation issued to Defendant Citibank, N.A. 

March 7, 2022 Return of Service 

March 15, 2022 Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Original Answer 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 52 PageID 8
EXHIBIT “B” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 52 PageID 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

KIMBERLY M. SHELTON, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITIBANK, N.A. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-00730

DOCUMENTS FILED IN STATE COURT ACTION 

Reference Date Filed in State 

Court Action 

Document Name 

Exhibit B-1 February 8, 2022 Plaintiff’s Original Petition 

Exhibit B-2 February 8, 2022 Citation issued to Defendant Citibank, N.A. 

Exhibit B-3 March 7, 2022 Return of Service 

Exhibit B-4 March 15, 2022 Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Original Answer 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 52 PageID 10
EXHIBIT “B-1” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 52 PageID 11
FILED 

2/8/2022 14:32 AM 

Dallas County 

Justic of the Peace Pct 2-2 

E . By: Aime’ Banda 

 

 “KIMBERLY M SHELTON, Teo ee : 3 ol wi | INTHE JUSTICE COURT Plaintifs,’ AE ERISA hai N 

Veo . | ©. © | PRECINCT2PLACE2 

comma Na. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

 

. Defendant. 

» 

 

a 

TO THE HONORABLE: ETUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

coms NOW, Plsinift KIMBERLY M ‘SHELTON tener. roférred LJ as 

| “Pliatit?) and files this: Original Petition against Defendant CITIBANK; NA, (hereinafter . 

refered to as “Defendant, bi repestlly shows hie Court the following: 

 

 

 

DISCOVERY CONTROL FLAN LEVEL 

 

ct 

oe L- Plant résérves s the ol ght to’ petition this’ Court to engage in pris discovery plirsusst to 

Rule 500. 9 of the Texas Rules: of Civil Prbgedure. 

. 2. Plainift is an individia who resides. in’ Dallas. County, ok 

“ SI ey 

 

. adesigned. oitisel, LE | 

Blair is a “person” as defied by 4 U. S: C: § 15339). 

as + 4, Blin is’ a “Constmer” “meaning Plant is.a natural person: who} is allegedly obligated 

" “to pay any debt, on 

8, | The Copsumer Debt is an, obligation or lloged obligation of o the Plaintiff to pay any money 

. aising outofa transaction in i which the) money, property, or services, which are e the, subject of the 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 52 PageID 12
transagtion are’ primarily for persons) fail or household pusposes.. py 

 

5 Defendant is a “pst "as defined ‘by 47 U. S « § 15369). 

EN ES fotgh its get S," mployes; officer, peter, volunieers, staffers, 

 

 

irc, Hei, successors, assigns, principals; rustess, shreties; subtogees representatives, and 

 

insurers; " all times woes to he instant actioti. El . 3 i In 

8. Defendant, Cian A may! be, served with;progess trong at its s offices located at 800 S. 

Corporate Piace; Sioux Falls, sp 57 104. | 

: 9. ‘Defendant isa a dt collet as defined aniler Tex. Fin. Code Atal -§ 392. 0 because 

 

Defendant has engaged in direct or indirect ache collection against the. Plaintiff in Tosa 

- 3 i JURISDICTION AND VENTE 

 

 

 

12 ve in- \ Dallas cou, Texas i is ropes i iis ciiuse o pursuant to. Section 15. 002 of the 

 

omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in’ Dallas County, Texas, 

Fou 

. FACTUAL ALLEGATION 5 Co 

11 Plaintift incorporates b referbnce all: of the above pacaphs of this Petition as though 

filly stated herein with the same: force and effect ds; if the same ‘Were set forth at length herein 

7) At a ties relevant to the instant action, Plante was, he sibssrbes owner, and operator 

of the- celtilar phoné ening in 0281. Plaintit is aid always has, been sicily responsible for 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 52 PageID 13
- 8. cellular phone andits services: 

Ee 1B. “Defendait fnew Plain is phone niimber was # a collider telephone smber. before 

Loa i" Defendant called Plains phone number, 

. 4. At all’ Yisties Hlovarit to the instant ston Plaintiff's work lone number was the phone 

umber ending in 3305. Ry ra N } oe ; 

15. Defendant Kiiow Plaintiff S photic: number, was a’ work telephone} ‘umber before Defendant 

ro called Plaintifs [5 work phone umber. 

16 At all tires relevant to the instant action, Plaintiff and her husband ‘were the. sibscrivers, 

owners; re operators of the tani’ phori ening i “1697. Plante and her husband are and 

) always. have been financially response’ for the landline phono wil it's services. 

Bb. Defendant Jndwr Plait? s landline pie miber was’ a laidline telephone number before 

Co Defendant called Plaintifr's phone nuinber. 

 

N 3 18 Bling s landline phone mimber is on th National Do Not Cat Registry. 

 

1. ) on or. abou January 36; 2021, Plaitif sént. a letter to Defendant about : an Accourit with 

Defendat. Aone’, attached. as Bait A requesting an. investigation of the above 

He 

 

’ stated account, as well as the information being. reported to credit reporing agencies, yogarding the: 

i dccotnt: ‘Plaintift informed Defendant’ she had filed dispute letters I to ie eredit Bureaus Laat Plaintiff . 

~ y did not upderstand why the Acco int was abruptly’ closed, 

 

20. ‘on of about. February 1, 2021, Defendant responded: 16. Plaiitiff stating sic “records 

. indicéte that your aceoiint was élosed on 0819 19/2030, because fails the card reissue criteria. 

The ‘adcount- 4s-in failed reissue die to late, paymerts going over the credit line or related 

) accounts ‘which’ are not. in »compliance with] the terms, & conditions of the citi bank card 

* agreement.” See copy of Lette dated Febriaty 1; 2021 attached as Exhibit B. B 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 52 PageID 14
| an dae. 

| 2l.. On or:about Jul§:29, 2021, 2 Defendant informed Plaintiff the balatice on the Account was 

4 : $4; 223. 22: See copy of Lette er received Rly, 29, 2021 aiached: ‘as Exhibit C. 

2, On or: about August 2, 2021, ‘Defendant responded to Plaiitiffs account request to update 

he information on ¢ her erodit report and Defendant verified that the filorimticn was correct. 

See copy of Letir received attached as Exit D. . Cs “ CT ~ I 

3 23. Plaintiff Vogt} feceivi als from Defendant demanding full payment. of the Account’s 

alleged balance. - 

A. Plaitiff demanded Defendant to cease al calls ina § Totter received by. Defendant on July 

9 2020. See copy of Leer sent Ens 5, 2021 atached as s Exhibit E 

25 ‘Defendant ignored Plaintiffs Tequest, and diptiliod collection. efforts for the Aseput. 

ES Defends caliéd Pain at feast 21 times between Hy 10, 2021 and July 19, 2021, 

 

| Plintis tans were ma 

2% © on. of £ shot it July 9; 20 11 

’ a, 247 pm and 5:51 pm. 

4 » To or: aboi July 10, 20 

am, J10: 36, am, 12: 50 mand 3: 

including tres calls’ to se S ok, See screenshots of cal jog ached as s ‘ExhibitF. 

 

 

2, Defendant called from 1-877-281-0416 four (4) tines at 8:09 

) 30. On or about Tuy: 11, ik Defendant called Sond 1-87-28 1-046 fou @ times at 8: 21 

"am, 1036 am, 12: 29 pri and 2: 55pm. 

3: Onor about Tuly: 12, 2021, Defendant called from 1- 877-281-0416 three ®t times at 10:30 

am, 5; 29 pm wind 8: 34pm. 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 52 PageID 15
 

 

5 On or about uly 13 2021, 2 Defendant called ‘from: ik 505. 637-7243 at$: 30am and lefta 

 v ) icemail Defendant called rom 1.877.381.0416 two oF: times at 2: 97 pm and. 6: 08: pm. 

 

3 =. } “On or about duly fa, 2001, Defendant called from Ir 577.281.0416 threo oF times at t8: 01 g 

"am, 240 pn od 0pm. | Lo Co } 

34. Onc or’ abot uly 15,2021, Defendnt called from 1- §77-281-0416 three 3) tines at 8:01 

am, , 2:56 pm and 6: 06 pm, = 

35, .On’ ot ‘abort Joly 16, 201m Defendant oad from: 18772810416 one: ) time at 8:07 

% ono or, : soi Tuly 17, 2021, Defendant called from 1-877-281- 0416 ¢ one fo time at.8: 02 

o am, at Plaster Ta plecans of wo v be cass Wiel © 

 

h he - am at PlaitifF’s) lic of work and Ie voigerail. 

. telephone uimbers. 

: 5, ' Defendant used an an inated phone ailing system to call Plaati?s celle, landline 

oy and work telephoaés;ollckively ¢ “Phos y: 

= | Defendant occasionally eda ‘a preresort dd messages when calling PlaintifPs Phones. 

 

The automated iphone dialing system used to call Defendant Bas the capacity to store 

 

2 The, atomaied phone di ing g system) sd to call Defendant has the capeciiy to call or 

8 

“a i we FE 

owt 

 

43. The leptons dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff ] Phones has the capacity to 

@ gall ‘or r tekt stored telephone Bumbers witht human intervention. 

oF 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 52 PageID 16
Li 

44. “The lephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintif's: hones has the Sppetiy to 

tahoe nd AF 

:, call telephone simbers in sequential order, 

 

as The telephone 

 

dialer system. Defendant 

 

used. to call 

 

Pla 

 

3 cll telephons bird randomly. 

i 46, “The telephone disler system Defendant used to all Plainsie s Phones selects telephone 

 

muinbers to be. called. according to a: protochl or strategy cnteredl Deferidant 

 

dt” pre ¢ der ystem Deferdast oni to Plaintiffs [3 Phonics simultanionsly calls or > a. The ielep 

 

texis imliple persons. 

i. 48 The slaming volume of cals by! Deféndant ig evidence of inent to hafass Plsintify. 

 

ons. 

EA 

i! i * Planift fel roitened fiom he volume and ns at e of the opto 

 

PlaintifF S: Phos : 

 

0 battery chirge; loss it concen; menial anguish snes the cpritowat clcicty costs 

required to, :rechinge Plait ’S éliuar telephone as: a, result of: increased usage of f PlanifF's 5 

 

and’ wasting Pia fiEFs time. 

 

: tones servic 

os) Me rsover, cach time Defondinit Placed a telephone, all to. Pla iff Defendant occupied 

"54. Plaintiff's Phones such that Plaintiff was unable to’ ‘Teceive other phone calls or ‘otherwise - 

uilize her Phones while her Phonos were ringing. 

PCase 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 52 PageID 17
 

Viola ons of the Te pho ¢ Consmmer Protection P Act USCS ase) 

 

 

5. All paragraphs of this Coys are s expressly adopted and incorporated herein as though 

fully set forth herein. Lo 

56. The TCPA defines ATDS as ~eqipment which has the capacity—(4) to store or produce 

telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial 

+ such numbers, ” 47U.S.C. § 276), 

57. Upon information and belief the system used by Defendant to place calls to Plaintiff has the 

capacity to1 use a random or sequential number generator to determine the order i in which to pick 

phone mmbers from a preloaded Bist of mimbers of consuriers that are allégedly in default on 

3 i 

their payments. 

58. Accordingly, the syst employed by: Defeiidant has. the capacity, — @ to store or produce 

telephone nunibets to’ be called, using ; a randois or Sequential mumber generator; and” ®B) to dial 

such: numbers. I | 

v 59, Defendant violated 47 u. S.C. § 27 (AA) Gi) ): by placing no folly ‘than 27 non- emergency 

calls, including but not ¢ limited to the: aforementioned to Plaintiff's ‘Phones, wiizig an ATDS 

without Plaintiff’s. consent 

60. Aspled above, Plaintiff evoked consent tobe called/texted on ther Phones in-a letter received 

by Defendant on Tul7 9, 2000, — as Ex hibit: E, 

6L. As pled above, Plaintiff sas severely harmed by Defendant’s collection-calls to her Phones. 

62. Upon infortnation and bt, Dein has no system in plice to ‘document whether it has 

consent to contact consumer on their selighanes, . | 

63. Upon information and belie, Defendant has no policies and procedures in place to

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 52 PageID 18
: Ko “Plainsitt fedls death 1 

honor, corisumgrs’ ? requests that collection. eplls cease, 3 

SL 

 

64% * Upon; information and belief, Defendant fnew its collection) practices vieated the TCPA, 

 

: yet continued to employ then in i 1 cde 1 maximize scene and’ révepie.. 

 

6 65. As a result of Defendan 's Siolatonsiof 47. U. S. c. 27D, Plaintiff is i entitled to 

receive $500. 00 in dainages for nile violation. 

a, _ 

gh Af a resul of Defendant's ? skoving and willful violations of 47°USS. C. $227 7 G)L)AXG), 

 

! Plains is. rifled to receive up to 81, S01 i 0 0i in treble damages for eachviclation.” 

 

é. Plainife incorporates By. reférence ai of the abby pings of this Complaint as s though : 

 

sys stated herein with the same force. nd offi as if the fies were set forth at lengthen. 

& This i is: an n dtion for wit violation: of the Texts s Debt: Collegtion n Act, Tex, Fin. Code: ‘ it] ad § 392 erseg, rh a 

 

@: séstion §302: 302(4) states a deh collector maf not oppress, hss, OF abuse a'person by 

} causing a telephone to ing: repeated or continuously, of ‘naling. repeated or. continuous 

 

telephone calls, with the infent to harass. a person. at the called nufiber. he 

 

 

3 0. Defendant violated Section $392. 30 with i volume of calls. 

en Fof he aforementioned 1 ; ons, 

 

collar landline nd wielk telephones. , Co ERE 

B. "For: these Hilson, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for actual damages, sisbuiony 

damages, costs, Ew, reasonable attoriey’ 'S fees’ 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 52 PageID 19
 

 

WRBSEigR Plait demands Hgts fiom Defondunt as follows: 

1. Award: Plaintiff Sst, damages of at least. $500: 00 per : hte: call/text 

message and tle damages tsps | to 47 U. 8. C. §§ 227(b)3)B)&(C); 

2 Award. Plaintiff Statutory damages not. fess than $100 under the TDCA; 

"3 Award Plant abtudl damages under the TOCA; 

4. Award Plaintiff] costs of this action, itinding ‘reasonable 

attorneys’ fees: eupasss under TDCA; and | 

5. Award Plaintiff such other and further reli as a this Court may deem just 

and proper. ! 

. | 

i 

DATED: February 8,2022 | EE Respectfully Submitted, 

|" JAFFER & ASSOCIATES PLLC 

is Allen Robertson : 3 

"Allen Robertson © 

Texas Bar No. 24076655 

Shawn Jaffer 

Texas Bar, No. 24107817 

: Texas Bar No.. 24086466 

- Robert’ Leach ’ 

Texas Bar No.24103582 

‘1585 1 Dallas Pkwy’ Ste 600 - 

© Addison, TX 75001 © 

Phone: 214-494-1871 

“Fax: 888-509-3910 } 

E-mail: attorneys@jaffer. law 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 52 PageID 20
 

 

 

pl i i 2 

; 

 

 

 

FILED 

2/8/2022 11:32 AM _ Dallas County 

Justic of the Peace Pct 2-2 

N By: Aime Banda

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 52 PageID 21
Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 17 of 52 PageID 22
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 12 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 18 of 52 PageID 23
 

 

 

an {BAT 4146 5955 DAA TIS 6a 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 19 of 52 PageID 24
 

Actsection 623 (a)(8), and the ekas J tempus Iam disputing 

 Hig Bh bens 

“Finally; u A Gommunieation to the 3 3 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 20 of 52 PageID 25
Page.Two 

 

Enclosures 

 

as 

| 

| |. » | 

! 

H 

x 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 21 of 52 PageID 26
 

# : I A ¢ 

Tracking Numbe 

 

 pe (64710 SPE Tiacking®d Rou 

A PEE FAQs > 

ES 

FE A RT 

 

 

Remove X 

 

 

 

 

hHpEIRGOIS pS. Com/gO/TrEEKCONIrACHENZGHE: § 

 12

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 22 of 52 PageID 27
Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 23 of 52 PageID 28
A) kL Peymitnt History 

 

 

13/26. 

Bt 3 

 

Jar 

n asian , 

 

Era d iads For KIM SHELTON Rs Date generated Jun 2 

pailan

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 24 of 52 PageID 29
8 

ie 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 25 of 52 PageID 30
 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 26 of 52 PageID 31
FAQs 3 

 Remove X 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 27 of 52 PageID 32
 

 

 

LE =, sdf ] - rs wt 

x " od 0 

 

 i AR lpn 0 Bent nt 1 

 

ART 

plat 5 ear TE 407319 

 

 

vr me 

 

. | LAE rt leaky PR 

8 88 az 477 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hr BE 

ns Hate ka 

 

 N R N ” 3. 1 i : 2 Ld > E 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RB “ 

PE TEE Rp

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 28 of 52 PageID 33
FILED 

2/8/2022 11:32 AM 

Dallas County 

Justic of the Peace Pct 2-2 

--By:'Alme Banda 

 

PO Box 6500 ; A ST, LC Sioux: Falls, $D7117:6500 Co “Account Update: Important Information 

 

 

 

 

 

 

et A [2 Kit: SHELTON : k 

a our records indicate that yo r account he . Account t ending 1881 / 

30's JE : oY S$ LR Ae - + 

2 ’ 3 [K2 ! . 

$s We have for arded. Your eit rep ort inci) 

+ 

| ) 

i 1. 

_ Pegs: see reverse sldedfor; important infomation . 

es ven 9.L.08000050 21202 210970857350, 0840, iD, Lo 0003. AiPuyHY. A. he tm Fe Pew Lo. -

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 29 of 52 PageID 34
T0T5ET 

 

_ Dallas County niga the Pdace Pet 2-2 

‘Stoo Falls; SDATI17-6500. 

siadosss 

 

eritactinig our Gustomnar Service Team. ra 

the ax to TILE AN Se poh 

| t 

| rr. | 

 

TT2021072473128805, 04, FDIC 

 

i 5 EE

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 30 of 52 PageID 35
FILED 

2/8/2022 11:32 AM 

Dallas County 

Justic of the Peace Pct 2-2 By: Aime Banda 

 

 

 

 

} ;Gltibank, N.A. 

 

xeed Sioux Falls, SD 57117-6241 

 

 

 

agenciés the you . are disputing. dG ‘on Yous account. 

ane 30 days for then to make this update: 

ing the dispute to your 

ili . 

I ~ fot = wii + % oy 

Birigerslyy : | 

‘Crédit Management. Departietit = CBROO10 

+ FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE STATEMENT. PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE 

 = tie 

; 

{ 4 i 

SS SE 

i t 

4 

i 

«© 4 ¥ 

a

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 31 of 52 PageID 36
. FILED 

2/8/2022 11:32AM 

Dallas, County 

Juste of the Peace Pct 2-2 

. ‘By: ‘Aime: Banda 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 32 of 52 PageID 37
 

 

ion purposes; as well as a 

liision of this 

Enclosuiés 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 33 of 52 PageID 38
nde = wn op; 

Fog ST Reiriove X 

 

 

oto or FAQs section fond afiswiers to your frackin vin By msn miming sg E Wnts 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 34 of 52 PageID 39
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FA. . : 

AP s n » 

PE a 

. © ns iE +." ve ; “ LT 

tw 3 - RRS GR 3 ct, % 4 eh ae ie i, "ih . a + s EAT LE PRAL AC + as gi : y 

3 seen yp 2 ARTICLE ELL 7% ADD) LX LE, i IF a wT ee # ) de « : ’ 

2 ditt SE Ta E ‘ ; SD 57117 To 

Ww ” WE » E B : 

i : Cw . N - 

Hook 2 Toe gf B ‘ 

EH - - . ‘. oy 

5 3 i " : ; : . . 

i . . : I. 

Poe . ER TA ee OP SE SL ae Te : . , ; . , 

Le J . Bo. . 

" a R , . EF. "8 we or oan i 7 . 

Po. 7 Pp 

H . FE . 

sn © wr - FEERL EN . Eo Wi, “ORaiiis WOR St § § - : P" 

% wr 37% = #3 

i I a . N 

BT * 

# 1 

1 \ : jd 

i ‘ . 

1 B E 

ay 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 35 of 52 PageID 40
 

 

 

 

nf, SE tare eign, tit lige 

Heh 022 11:32 AM Yallas County 

By: Aime Banda

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 36 of 52 PageID 41
EXHIBIT “B-2” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 37 of 52 PageID 42
 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 38 of 52 PageID 43
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 39 of 52 PageID 44
EXHIBIT “B-3” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 40 of 52 PageID 45
 

FILED 

3/7/2022 12:00 

Dallas Cou 

Justic of the Peace Pct 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 

Stato of Texas County of Dallas JP2-2 Court 

Case Number: J822-00041E 

Kimberly M, Shelton, 

Defendant: Citibank, NA. 

For: Shawn Jaffer Law Firm, PLLC 

Recslved by. Curtis M. Blasy on the 23rd day of February, 2022 at 12:23 pm to vy on Citibank ALT any 

authorized agont, 5800 8 Caiporats Pl, Sloux Eailg, Lincoln ve) vy iE being duly 

swom, dopese and say that on the /__day of Aca ctu Ale fg a true copy of 

the Citation and Plalntiff'e Original Petition with Exhibits A, B, rx D, 2 re 2 F i or, Bau with state statutes in the manner 

marked below: 

ORPORATE § CE: By delivering to } pldug spding 

Maga] tai Mage REE ie <2 oe lin, SL tone 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC AGENCY: By delivering to {Individual as yeeere — FERRE —" § swept (street), {dity), (state) (2p code) (county). 

SUBSTITUTE SERVICE: By delivering to (individual b yO (elstion sia) at nS 058 5500100 0 (ci) (stalo) {zp code) {cotnty). 

() GOVERNMENT AGENCY: By delivering to (individual accepting) as (title) of the i agency at (street), (city), (stale) code) (county). 

 

 

() NON SERVICE: For the reason detailed in the comments below. 

 

 

 

COMMENTS: 

| certify that | am over the age of 18, have no Interest In the above action, and have the proper authority in the jurisdiction In which this 

pracesa was delivered. The facts In this affidevit are within my parsonal knowledge and true and comect. 

 

 

 

 

and 

 

 

 

nd swom to before me on the 2 > day of PROCESS SERVER # by the afflant who Is gwit 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L 2h py RICH VIN CENT 8512) 717-5600 

$ ok SouTHoMGM $our Job Serial Number: 2022002072 Prd Cndsd¥Ref. Kimberly Shellon 

Copynght © 16922022 Oalatnsn Bavicas, ie. - Procoas Savard Tealbax Va.1L 

By: Aime Ba 

AM 

hty 

2-2 

nda 

 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 41 of 52 PageID 46
EXHIBIT “B-4” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 42 of 52 PageID 47
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 1 

NO. JS-2200041E 

KIMBERLY M. SHELTON, § IN THE JUSTICE COURT 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § PRECINCT 2 PLACE 2 

 § 

CITIBANK, N.A., § 

Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

 

 

DEFENDANT CITIBANK, N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

 Subject to and without waiver of its rights to removal and contractual rights to arbitration, 

Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Defendant” or “Citibank”) files this, its Original Answer, and would 

respectfully show this Court as follows: 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Without waiver of its rights to arbitration, pursuant to Rule 502.5(b) of the Texas Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Defendant Citibank generally denies each and every, all and singular, of the 

allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

 Citibank does not waive and expressly reserves its contractual rights to compel arbitration, 

its rights to removal, any objections or defenses it may have as to improper service, jurisdiction, 

or venue, or any other defenses or objections to this action. Citibank intends no admission of fact, 

law, or liability by this Original Answer, and reserves all defenses, motions, and pleas. 

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Subject to the foregoing General Denial and Reservation of Rights, including Defendant’s 

contractual right to compel arbitration and rights to removal, and without waiving the same, 

Defendant Citibank asserts the following affirmative defenses, which, singularly or in 

FILED

3/15/2022 3:03 PM

Dallas County 

Justic of the Peace Pct 2-2

By: Aime Banda

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 43 of 52 PageID 48
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 2 

combination, bar Plaintiff’s right to recover from Defendant Citibank, in whole or in part, the 

damages and relief sought in Plaintiff’s Petition. To the extent that such affirmative defenses are 

inconsistent, they are pleaded in the alternative. Defendant asserts the following affirmative 

defenses:

1. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as the matters raised in Plaintiff’s 

Original Petition may be subject to mandatory arbitration. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has not suffered 

any actual damages. 

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of set-off. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. 

7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of consent. By her 

own conduct, acts, omissions, contractual promises, and agreements Plaintiff consented to and 

acquiesced in Defendant’s conduct, including by providing express consent to be contacted by 

Defendant at the telephone number provided by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff, and/or another 

customary user of the phone who can bind Plaintiff, consented to receive any telephone calls which 

allegedly were made and any purported revocation of consent was ineffective as a matter of fact 

and law. 

8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate 

damages, if any. 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 44 of 52 PageID 49
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 3 

9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unjust 

enrichment. 

10. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of assumption of 

risk. 

11. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of justification. 

12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of ratification. 

13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of contributory 

negligence. 

14. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. 

15. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. 

16. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the plain terms of the applicable 

contract(s). 

17. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff suffered no injury 

or actual damages as a result of any act, conduct, or practice of Citibank. 

18. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent they are based on law 

other than the governing law contained in the parties’ credit card agreement. 

19. Citibank alleges that it has appropriately, completely, and fully performed and 

discharged any and all obligations and legal duties, if any, arising out of the matters alleged in 

Plaintiff’s Original Petition. 

20. At all relevant times, Citibank acted in good faith in its dealings, if any, with 

Plaintiff. As such, it would be inequitable to award Plaintiff damages in any amount. 

21. Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and each claim and cause of action set forth therein, 

are barred, in whole or in part, on the grounds that Citibank is entitled to an offset or setoff of any 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 45 of 52 PageID 50
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 4 

damages claimed by Plaintiff based on the amounts owed on Plaintiff’s account(s) and/or based 

on Plaintiff’s breach of the parties’ agreement(s). 

22. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any damage, injury and/or 

harm sustained by Plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of the independent, intervening, 

negligent, criminal, and/or unlawful conduct of independent third parties or their agents, and not 

any act or omission on the part of Citibank. 

23. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because all actions taken by 

Citibank were reasonable in time and scope. 

24. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Citibank substantially 

complied with all applicable statutory requirements, and the doctrine of substantial compliance 

bars the recovery the Plaintiff seeks. 

25. Plaintiff’s Original Petition does not allege facts sufficient to rise to the level of 

conduct required to recover punitive damages, and thus all requests for punitive damages are 

improper. 

26. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the economic loss rule. The 

economic loss rule bars tort claims for the recovery of economic losses when the loss is the subject 

matter of a contract. 

27. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff’s alleged injuries 

are not traceable to the allegedly violative conduct. 

28. Plaintiff’s TCPA claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the First Amendment 

of the United States Constitution. 

29. Plaintiff’s damages claim under the TCPA is barred, in whole or in part, due to an 

absence of any actual damages. Hence, any statutory damages are an excessive fine and violate 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 46 of 52 PageID 51
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 5 

Defendant’s rights under the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution 

and/or applicable state constitutions. 

30. Defendant’s telephone lacks the present capacity to generate random or sequential 

telephone numbers to dial those numbers. 

31. The Petition, and each claim and cause of action set forth therein, is barred, in whole 

or in part, on the grounds that Plaintiff seeks damages that are too speculative to permit recovery. 

32. Any state law claims that are subsumed within a federal law of the same subject 

matter are preempted by federal law. 

33. Citibank reserves the right to amend and supplement its affirmative defenses to 

include any applicable defense of law or fact. 

SERVICE BY EMAIL 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 502.5(a)(3), Defendant consents to receive 

documents related to this case by email at the email addresses: meagan@martinpowers.com, 

katie@martinpowers.com, angelita@martinpowers.com, and paralegals@martinpowers.com. Plaintiff 

is directed to send all documents for service to all four email addresses listed, which are Defendant’s 

counsel and paralegal.

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, subject to and without waiving its rights to 

removal and its contractual rights to compel arbitration, Defendant Citibank requests that Plaintiff 

take nothing by her claims; all costs be assessed against Plaintiff, and that Defendant Citibank be 

granted such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant Citibank may prove 

to be justly entitled. 

DATE: March 15, 2022 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 47 of 52 PageID 52
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A.’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Page 6 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Meagan Martin Powers

Meagan Martin Powers 

State Bar No. 24050997 

Katherine M. Anand 

State Bar No. 24050223 

M. Angelita Delgadillo 

State Bar No. 24072507 

MARTIN POWERS & COUNSEL, PLLC 

600 E. John Carpenter Fwy, Suite 234 

Irving, Texas 75062 

Telephone: (214) 612-6474 

Facsimile: (214) 247-1155 

meagan@martinpowers.com

katie@martinpowers.com

angelita@martinpowers.com 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

CITIBANK, N.A. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this the 15th day of March 2022, a true and correct copy of the 

forgoing document was served on all parties and counsel of record thru the Court’s electronic filing 

system. 

/s/ M. Angelita Delgadillo 

M. Angelita Delgadillo 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 48 of 52 PageID 53
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system

on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing

certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Paralegal Martin Powers on behalf of Meagan Powers

Bar No. 24050997

paralegals@martinpowers.com

Envelope ID: 62629439

Status as of 3/15/2022 3:57 PM CST

Associated Case Party: KimberlyMShelton

Name

Allen Robertson

Shawn Jaffer

BarNumber

24107817

Email

attorneys@jaffer.law

shawn@jaffer.law

TimestampSubmitted

3/15/2022 3:03:53 PM

3/15/2022 3:03:53 PM

Status

SENT

SENT

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 49 of 52 PageID 54
EXHIBIT “C” 

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 50 of 52 PageID 55
DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Page 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KIMBERLY M. SHELTON,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITIBANK, N.A.

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-00730

DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and this Court’s Local Rules 3.1(c), 7.4, 

and 81.1(a)(4)(D), Defendant Citibank, N.A. provides the following information: 

(1) Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning

10% or more of its stock:

(a) Citibank, N.A., is a national bank located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

(b) Citigroup, Inc., a publicly-traded corporation, is the parent corporation

of Citibank, N.A.

(2) A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships,

corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary

corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the

outcome of the case.

(a) Plaintiff Kimberly M. Shelton

(b) Defendant Citibank, N.A.

(c) Citigroup Inc.

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 51 of 52 PageID 56
DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Page 2 

DATE: March 30, 2022 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Meagan Martin Powers______ 

Meagan Martin Powers

State Bar No. 24050997 

Katherine M. Anand

State Bar No. 24050223 

M. Angelita Delgadillo

State Bar No. 24072507 

MARTIN POWERS & COUNSEL, PLLC 

600 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 234 

Irving, Texas 75062 

Telephone: (214) 612-6474 

Facsimile: (214) 247-1155 

meagan@martinpowers.com 

katie@martinpowers.com

angelita@martinpowers.com 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

CITIBANK, N.A.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 30th day of March 2022, a true and correct copy of 

Defendant’s Certificate of Interested Persons was served on Plaintiff in the State Court Action 

thru the Court’s electronic filing system. 

/s/ M. Angelita Delgadillo

M. Angelita Delgadillo

Case 3:22-cv-00730-K Document 1-1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 52 of 52 PageID 57