1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

JIMMY MCKASKLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NRG ENERGY dba DIRECT ENERGY, LP, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:22-cv-00328 

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, by and through his undersigned counsel, 

complaining of Defendant, NRG ENERGY dba DIRECT ENERGY, LP, as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. This action seeks redress for Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq, the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Tex. 

Fin. Code Ann. §392 et seq., invasion of privacy, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. 

2. “The primary purpose of the TCPA was to protect individuals from the harassment, 

invasion of privacy, inconvenience, nuisance, and other harms associated with unsolicited, 

automated calls.” Parchman v. SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 738-39 (6th Cir. 2018) citing Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, § 2, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991). 

3. As the Supreme Court recently observed, “Americans passionately disagree about 

many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls.” Barr v. Am. Ass’n of 

Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343 (2020). 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1
2 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

5. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

PARTIES 

6. Jimmy McKaskle (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, who at all 

times relevant resided in Irving, Texas. 

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

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

9. NRG ENERGY dba DIRECT ENERGY, LP (“Defendant”) is a prominent utility 

provider of electricity in the state of Texas. 

10. Defendant maintains its principal place of business at 12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250, 

Houston, Texas 77046. 

11. Defendant is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

12. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §392.001(6) as it 

directly or indirectly engages in debt collection. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

13. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of the 

cellular telephone number ending in 1096. 

14. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 1096 was assigned to a cellular 

telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

15. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for his cellular telephone 

equipment and services. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2
3 

16. In or around July 2021, Plaintiff obtained electricity service through Defendant. 

17. In or around January 2022, Plaintiff switched electric companies. 

18. Plaintiff received his final statement from Defendant in the amount of $238.87. 

19. On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff paid the full balance to Defendant via check. 

20. Defendant cashed this check on January 10, 2022. 

21. In or around February 2022, Plaintiff started receiving phone calls from Defendant. 

22. Confused as to why Defendant would be contacting him, Plaintiff answered one of 

Defendant’s phone call. 

23. Defendant advised Plaintiff that it was attempting to collect an alleged balance due in 

the amount of his last bill, $238.87 (“subject debt”). 

24. Astounded as to why Defendant was claiming this bill was unpaid, Plaintiff informed 

Defendant that he had already paid the alleged subject debt. 

25. On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff received three separate collection calls from Defendant 

within a three-minute window. 

26. During one of these phone calls, frustrated with the frequency of the calls, Plaintiff 

demanded that Defendant stop calling him. 

27. On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff answered another of Defendant’s collection calls and 

provided Defendant with proof of his payment in the form of a printout confirmation of his cashed 

check. 

28. Unfortunately, Defendant still claims that no payment was made, and that Plaintiff 

still owed the alleged subject debt. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID 3
4 

29. Plaintiff’s request fell on deaf ears again and Defendant continued placing harassing 

collections calls to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, calls from the phone number (833) 765-

0427. 

30. Frustrated with Defendant’s collection attempts on a debt that he does not owe, 

Plaintiff retained counsel to assist with this matter. 

DAMAGES 

31. Defendant’s harassing phone calls have severely disrupted Plaintiff’s everyday life 

and overall well-being. 

32. Defendant’s harassing calls have caused Plaintiff damages, including, aggravation that 

accompanies frequent unwanted phone calls, anxiety, emotional distress, increased risk of personal 

injury resulting from the distraction caused by the phone calls, embarrassment, wear and tear to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone, temporary loss of use of Plaintiff’s cellular phone, invasion of privacy, 

loss of battery charge, loss of concentration, mental anguish, nuisance, the per-kilowatt electricity 

costs required to recharge Plaintiff’s cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of Plaintiff’s 

telephone services, and wasting Plaintiff’s time. 

33. Moreover, each time Defendant placed a telephone call to Plaintiff, Defendant 

occupied Plaintiff’s cellular phone such that Plaintiff was unable to receive other phone calls or 

otherwise utilize his cellular phone while his phone was ringing. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 et. seq.) 

34. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as 

though fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID 4
5 

35. The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or 

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

to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). 

36. Upon information and belief, the system used by Defendant to place calls to Plaintiff 

has the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to determine the order in which 

to pick phone numbers from a preloaded list of numbers of consumers that are allegedly in default 

on their payments. 

37. Accordingly, the system employed by Defendant has the capacity – (A) to store or 

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

to dial such numbers. 

38. As pled above, Defendant made phone calls to Plaintiff with such frequency as can be 

indicative of Defendant using an ATDS. 

39. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii) by placing non-emergency calls, 

including but not limited to the aforementioned collection calls, to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 

utilizing an ATDS without Plaintiff’s consent. 

40. As pled above, Plaintiff revoked consent to be called on his cellular phone during an 

answered call on February 7, 2022. 

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

cellular phone. 

42. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no system in place to document whether 

it has consent to contact consumers on their cellular phones. 

43. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no policies and procedures in place to 

honor consumers’ requests that collection calls cease. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID 5
6 

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew its collection practices violated the 

TCPA, yet continued to employ them in order to maximize efficiency and revenue. 

45. As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff is 

entitled to receive $500.00 in damages for each violation. 

46. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §227 

(b)(1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff is entitled to receive up to $1,500.00 in treble damages for each violation. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, requests that this Honorable Court grant 

the following relief: 

A. a finding that Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

B. an award of statutory damages of at least $500.00 for each and every violation; 

C. an award of treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation; and 

D. an award of such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT II 

Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion Upon Seclusion 

47. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set 

forth herein. 

48. In Texas, “[t]he elements of a cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion 

upon seclusion are (1) an intentional intrusion upon a person’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs 

or concerns, (2) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) as a result of which 

the person suffered an injury.” Baugh v. Fleming, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 9847, 3. 

49. Defendant’s intrusive collection calls to Plaintiff after Plaintiff requested that the 

calls cease were an intentional intrusion upon the Plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID 6
7 

50. The intrusive unwanted phone calls would be considered offensive by a reasonable 

person as no reasonable person would tolerate harassing collection calls after they have requested 

that the calls cease. 

51. A reasonable person would find such calls to be highly offensive. 

52. As pled above, Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, requests that this Honorable Court grant the 

following relief: 

A. A finding that Defendant invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by intrusion upon seclusion; 

B. Entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for invasion of privacy; 

C. An award of actual damages; and 

D. An award of punitive damages. 

COUNT III 

Trespass to Chattels 

53.   Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as fully set forth 

herein. 

54. In the state of Texas, “[t]respass to chattel is the wrongful interference with the use or 

possession of another’s property. . .Liability does not attach unless the wrongful detention is 

accompanied by actual damage to the property or deprives the owner of its use for a substantial 

period of time. [citation].” Jones v. Boswell, 250 S.W.3d 140, 143. 

55. Defendant intentionally interfered with the physical condition of Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone by causing it to repeatedly ring after Plaintiff requested that the calls cease, thus temporarily 

impairing the phone’s physical condition. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID 7
8 

56. This intentional interference led to additional wear and tear on Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone, as well as loss of battery charge and the per-kilowatt electricity costs required to 

recharge Plaintiff’s cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of Plaintiff’s telephone 

services. 

57. Moreover, as set forth above, each time Defendant placed a telephone call to Plaintiff, 

Defendant occupied Plaintiff’s cellular telephone such that Plaintiff was unable to receive other 

phone calls or otherwise utilize his cellular telephone while his phone was ringing, thus depriving 

him of the use of his cellular telephone. 

58. As set forth above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, requests that this Honorable Court grant the 

following relief: 

A. A finding that Defendant trespassed on Plaintiff’s chattel (cellular phone); 

B. Entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for trespass to chattels; 

C. An award of actual damages; and 

D. An award of punitive damages. 

COUNT IV 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

59. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as fully set forth 

herein. 

60. In Texas, “[t]he elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) the 

defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) the 

actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress; and (4) the emotional 

distress was severe.” Tolbert v. Taylor, 629 S.W.3d 318, 329. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID 8
9 

61. Defendant’s intentional conduct in (1) placing relentless collection calls to Plaintiff 

and (2) continuing its collection activities after Plaintiff provided proof that the alleged subject 

debt was already paid was extreme and outrageous. 

62. Defendant’s conduct caused Plaintiff emotional distress and anxiety, which was so 

severe as to cause Plaintiff to contact an attorney regarding his rights and options to resolve this 

matter. 

63. As set forth above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s conduct. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, requests that this Honorable Court grant the 

following relief: 

A. A finding that Defendant’s conduct was intentional and caused Plaintiff emotional 

distress; 

B. Entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant for intentional infliction of 

emotional distress; 

C. An award of actual damages; and 

D. An award of punitive damages. 

COUNT V 

Texas Debt Collection Act (Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392 et seq.) 

64. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as fully set forth 

herein. 

Violation(s) of Tex. Fin. Code Ann § 392.302 

65. Subsection 392.302 of the Texas Finance Code provides: 

[i]n debt collection, a debt collector may not oppress, harass, or abuse a 

person by: 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID 9
10 

(4) 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. 

Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.302. 

66. Subsection 392.304 of the Texas Finance Code provides: 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, in debt collection or 

obtaining information concerning a consumer, a debt collector may not use 

a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation that employs the 

following practices: 

(8) misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt, 

or misrepresenting the consumer debt’s status in a judicial or 

governmental proceeding. 

Tex. Fin. Code §392.304. 

. 

67. As pled above, Plaintiff advised Defendant that he no longer wished to received 

collection calls from Defendant on his cellular phone. 

68. Defendant violated Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.302(4) by continuing to place phone 

calls to Plaintiff after Plaintiff requested that Defendant cease all contact with him. 

69. Defendant’s continuous phone calls were made with intent to annoy and harass 

Plaintiff. 

70. Additionally, Defendant violated Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §392.304(a)(8) by attempting to 

collect an amount not owed by Plaintiff. 

71. Specifically, Plaintiff already paid the alleged subject debt and provided Defendant 

with proof that the debt was paid in the form of a printout confirmation of a cashed check. 

72. Therefore, Defendant misrepresented the amount of the alleged subject debt in its 

dealings with Plaintiff. 

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID 10
11 

73. Plaintiff may enforce the provisions of Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §§ 392.302(4) and 

392.304(a)(8) through Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403, which provides: 

(a) A person may sue for: 

(1) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a violation of this chapter; and 

(2) actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter. 

(b) A person who successfully maintains an action under Subsection (a) is 

entitled to attorney’s fees reasonable related to the amount of work 

performed and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JIMMY MCKASKLE, requests that this Honorable Court grant 

the following relief: 

A. a finding that Defendant violated Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §§ 392.302(4) and 

392.304(a)(8); 

B. an award of injunctive relief pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(1); 

C. an award of actual damages in an amount to be determined pursuant to Tex. Fin. 

Code Ann. § 392.403(a)(2); 

D. an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined 

pursuant to Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.403(b); and 

E. an award of such other relief as is deemed just and proper. 

Date: February 9, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

JIMMY MCKASKLE

 

 By: /s/ Jennifer Ann McLaughlin, Esq.

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID 11
12 

Jennifer Ann McLaughlin, Esq. 

Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. 

Victor T. Metroff, Esq. 

Marwan R. Daher, Esq. 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd 

2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 

Lombard, IL 60148 

Telephone: (630) 575-8180 

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com 

jmclaughlin@sulaimanlaw.com

mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com

Case 3:22-cv-00328-B Document 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID 12