1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

DELISA M. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MEI AUTO FINANCE, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 4:22-cv-00464 

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, DELISA M. HARRIS (“Plaintiff”), by and through her 

undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendant, MEI AUTO FINANCE, INC., (“Defendant”) 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. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the 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 TDCA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

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

business in the Northern District of Texas, Plaintiff resides in the Northern District of Texas, and 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
2 

a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within the 

Northern District of Texas. 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff is a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, who at all times relevant resided 

in Euless, 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. Defendant is a prominent provider of auto financing in the state of Texas. 

Defendant maintains its principal place of business at 1611 Corporate Drive West, Arlington, 

Texas 76006. 

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

11. 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 

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

the cellular telephone number ending in 5059. 

13. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 5059 was assigned to a cellular 

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

14. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for her cellular telephone 

equipment and services. 

15. At some point, Plaintiff took out a vehicle loan with Defendant for her vehicle 

(“Vehicle”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
3 

16. In assuming the vehicle loan, Plaintiff entered into a Contract (“Contract”) with 

Defendant to finance the Vehicle, which required Plaintiff to make monthly payments. 

17. Due to unforeseen financial difficulty caused by COVID-19, Plaintiff occasionally 

fell behind on her monthly payments required by the Contract; however, Plaintiff always catches 

up on her payments within two weeks of her due date. 

18. After Plaintiff’s first late payment, Defendant started placing collection calls to 

Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the past-due amount (“subject debt”). 

19. Defendant would continue placing collection calls to Plaintiff until she became 

current on her loan, at which time the collection calls would stop. 

20. However, once Plaintiff’s account again became past-due, she would start receiving 

an incessant amount of collection calls from Defendant again. 

21. On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant and advised that she was 

making payments as she was able and that she was attempting to catch up on her bills. 

22. She also requested that Defendant cease calling her cellular phone. 

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

collections calls to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, calls from the phone numbers (682) 305-

1964, (817) 918-9677, and (682) 360-0450. 

24. In the course of the three days after Plaintiff requested that the phone calls cease to 

her cellular phone, she received approximately 52 phone calls from Defendant. 

25. On some occasions, Defendant would also place multiple phone calls to Plaintiff’s 

work phone number. 

26. Plaintiff asked Defendant to stop calling her work phone number because they were 

becoming abusive in nature. 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
4 

27. In total, Defendant placed no less than dozens of harassing phone calls to Plaintiff 

after Plaintiff requested that Defendant cease contacting her cellular phone. 

DAMAGES 

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

and overall well-being. 

29. 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, 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. 

30. 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 her cellular phone while her phone was ringing. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

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

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

though fully set forth herein. 

32. 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). 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
5 

33. 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. 

34. 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. 

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

be indicative of Defendant using an ATDS. 

36. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii) by placing no less than 52 nonemergency calls, including but not limited to the aforementioned collection calls, to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone, utilizing an ATDS without Plaintiff’s consent. 

37. As pled above, Plaintiff revoked consent to be called on her cellular phone during 

an answered call on December 17, 2021. 

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

cellular phone. 

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

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

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

honor consumers’ requests that collection calls cease. 

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
6 

42. 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. 

43. 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, DELISA M. HARRIS, requests that this Honorable Court 

request 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 

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

forth herein. 

45. Generally, to prevail on a claim for intrusion upon seclusion as a violation of one’s 

privacy, a Plaintiff must show that another has intentionally intruded, physically or otherwise, 

upon the Plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, and that such intrusion would be considered offensive 

by a reasonable person. 

46. 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. 

47. 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. 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
7 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DELISA M. HARRIS, 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 

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

herein. 

50. Generally, to establish a cause of action in trespass to a chattel there must be an 

intentional interference with the possession or physical condition of a chattel in possession of 

another. 

51. 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. 

52. 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 her cellular telephone while her phone was ringing. 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DELISA M. HARRIS, requests that this Honorable Court grant the 

following relief: 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
8 

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 

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

herein. 

55. Generally, liability for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress may 

be found only where ‘the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree 

as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly 

intolerable in a civilized community. 

56. Defendant’s comprehensive conduct in (1) the relentless unending collection calls 

and (2) ignoring Plaintiff’s plea to stop the calls goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, is 

atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DELISA M. HARRIS, requests that this 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
9 

d. An award of punitive damages. 

COUNT V 

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

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

herein. 

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

59. Subsection 392.302(4) of the Texas Finance Code provides: 

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

(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(4). 

60. As pled above, Plaintiff advised Defendant that she no longer wished to receive 

collection calls from Defendant on her cellular phone. 

61. 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 her. 

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

Plaintiff. 

63. Additionally, Defendant violated Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §392.302(4) by placing 

phone calls to Plaintiff’s place of employment on numerous occasions. 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
10 

(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, DELISA M. HARRIS, requests that this Honorable Court grant 

the following relief: 

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

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: May 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

DELISA M. HARRIS

 

 By: /s/ Marwan R. Daher, Esq.

Mohammed O. Badwan, 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 

mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com

Case 4:22-cv-00464-O Document 1 Filed 05/31/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10