[ 1 ]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION

KEARSTAHN DEBOSE,

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

GC SERVICES LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 2:18-CV-599

JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Now comes KEARSTAHN DEBOSE (“Plaintiff”), complaining as to the conduct 

of GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, (“Defendant”).

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) under 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., the Ohio Consumer 

Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345 et seq., and Ohio 

common law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the FDCPA and 

TCPA. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 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 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1
[ 2 ]

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

conducts business in the Southern District of Ohio and substantial portion of the events 

giving rise to the claims occurred within the Southern District of Ohio.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person residing within the Southern District of Ohio.

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

6. Defendant is a third-party debt collector. “GC Services is the largest 

private collection agency in the United States, with domestic ownership and extensive 

experience on third party collection programs.” GC Services – Third Party Receivables, 

available at https://www.gcserv.com/AccountsReceivableManagement/

ThirdPartyReceivables.aspx (retrieved June 13, 2018).

7. Defendant is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Texas and 

with offices around the country, including in Columbus, Ohio, that regularly collects 

upon consumers in Ohio.

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

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

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

representatives, and insurers at all times relevant to the instant action.

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

10. For the past six years, Plaintiff has been receiving calls to her cellular 

phone from Defendant.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 2
[ 3 ]

11. Defendant has called Plaintiff to collect upon a student loan debt.

12. Defendant has called Plaintiff several times per week, sometimes multiple 

times per day, over the past six years.

13. Defendant has called Plaintiff as early as 7:00 AM.

14. Defendant has repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with a lawsuit.

15. Plaintiff has told Defendant to stop calling her multiple times.

16. Plaintiff has changed her phone number multiple times in an attempt to 

end Defendant’s harassment.

17. On multiple occasions, when Defendant has called Plaintiff, and Plaintiff 

has answered, the voice on the other end of the line has been pre-recorded rather than a 

live human. 

18. Defendant has also contacted Plaintiff’s grandmother. Defendant 

mentioned Plaintiff’s purported debt to Plaintiff’s grandmother. 

19. Plaintiff has been unfairly and unconscionably harassed by Defendant’s 

actions.

20. Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, 

including but not limited to invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies 

collection telephone calls, emotional distress, and increased usage of her telephone 

services.

COUNT I—VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

21. Plaintiff realleges the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 3
[ 4 ]

22. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) of the FDCPA.

23. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA

because the principal purpose of its business is the collection of debts, and because it 

uses the instrumentalities of interstate commerce to do so. In the alternative, Defendant 

is a “debt collector” under § 1692(a)(6) because it regularly collects or attempts to 

collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

24. Defendant identifies itself as a debt collector and is engaged in the 

business of collecting or attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted debts 

owed, due, or asserted to be owed or due to others.

25. The subject debt is a “debt” as defined by FDCPA § 1692a(5) because the 

debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another arises out of a transaction for

personal, family, or household purposes, being in this case a student loan debt.

a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692b(2) & § 1692c(b).

26. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2), prohibits a debt collector, 

when calling any third party for the purpose of locating a consumer, from “stat[ing] 

that the consumer owes any debt.” The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), 

prohibits a debt collector from communicating about a consumer’s debt with any party,

other than those the section enumerates (none of which are relevant here), for any 

purpose other than locating the consumer. 

27. Defendant violated § 1692b(2) & § 1692c(b) when it communicated with 

Plaintiff’s grandmother regarding her purported debt and informed Plaintiff’s 

grandmother of the existence of said purported debt. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 4
[ 5 ]

a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692c(a)(1)

28. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1), prohibits a debt collector, 

from calling a consumer “at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or 

which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer. In the absence of 

knowledge of circumstances to the contrary, a debt collector shall assume that the 

convenient time for communicating with a consumer is after 8 o’clock antemeridian and 

before 9 o’clock postmeridian, local time at the consumer’s location.”

29. Defendant violated § 1692c(a)(1) by calling Plaintiff before 8:00 AM, 

namely at 7:00 AM. Receiving calls at this time had the natural consequence of 

inconveniencing Plaintiff.

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692d.

30. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, prohibits a debt collector from 

engaging “in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or 

abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.” § 1692d(5) further 

prohibits “causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone

conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any 

person at the called number.”

31. Defendant violated § 1692d(5) when it continuously called Plaintiff after 

being notified to stop. This systematic behavior of repeatedly calling Plaintiff’s phone 

despite her demand to stop was harassing and abusive. The frequency of calls and the 

long duration of the calling campaign (six years) shows that Defendant’s calls were 

designed to annoy and harass her.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 5
[ 6 ]

32. Defendant further violated § 1692d by communicating with Plaintiff’s 

grandmother and thereby introduced stress into her familial relationship. The natural 

consequence of this behavior was to harass, oppress, and abuse Plaintiff.

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692e(5).

33. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5), prohibits a debt collector 

from threatening “to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended 

to be taken.”

34. A debt collector’s threat to bring a lawsuit that it does not intend to bring 

violates § 1692e(5). See Baker v. G.C. Services Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 778–79 (9th Cir. 1982).

35. Defendant has called Plaintiff continuously for a period of six years. If 

Defendant intended to bring litigation against Plaintiff, it would almost certainly have 

done so by now. Defendant therefore violated § 1692e(5) when it threatened litigation it 

did not intend to bring.

c. Violations of FDCPA § 1692f.

36. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, prohibits a debt collector from 

using “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”

37. Defendant violated § 1692f when it unfairly and unconscionably 

attempted to collect on a debt by continuously calling Plaintiff after being notified to 

stop. Attempting to coerce Plaintiff into payment by placing voluminous phone calls 

without her permission is unfair and unconscionable behavior. These means employed 

by Defendant only served to worry and confuse Plaintiff.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 6
[ 7 ]

38. As pled above, Plaintiff has been harmed and suffered damages as a result 

of Defendant’s illegal actions.

COUNT II— VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA

39. Plaintiff realleges the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.

40. The TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), makes it unlawful “to 

make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior 

express consent of the called party) using any ... artificial or prerecorded voice— to any 

telephone number assigned to a ... cellular telephone service.”

41. Defendant violated this provision when it made calls using a pre-recorded 

voice to Plaintiff without her prior express consent.

42. Defendant knew that it was using pre-recorded voice messages to contact 

Plaintiff, and it did so willfully.

43. Under the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable 

to Plaintiff for $500.00 for each call that used a pre-recorded voice.

44. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages 

for any willful or knowing violations by Defendant.

45. The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff were regarding collection 

activity and not for emergency purposes as defined by the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(i).

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 7
[ 8 ]

46. Under the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable 

to Plaintiff for at least $500.00 per call. Plaintiff further prays for treble damages for 

willful and knowing violations of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).

COUNT III—VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT

47. Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

48. The CSPA, pursuant to R.C. 1345.02(A), states that “[n]o supplier shall 

commit an unfair or deceptive practice in connection with a consumer transaction.”

49. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(B).

50. Defendant is a “supplier” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(C). Taylor v. First 

Resolution Invest. Corp., 72 N.E.3d 573, 600 (Ohio 2016), cert. denied sub nom. First 

Resolution Inv. Corp. v. Taylor-Jarvis, 137 S. Ct. 398 (2016).

51. Debt collection is a “consumer transaction” as defined by R.C. 1345.01(A).

52. R.C. §1345.09(B) thus grants Plaintiff a private right of action against 

Defendant for $200 per violation of the CSPA, plus noneconomic damages of up to 

$5,000 per violation in an amount to be determined at trial, plus attorney fees.

53. Under the CSPA, the Court may award a multiplier for attorney fees for 

contingency fee cases, such as this one. Davis v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 6 F.3d 367, 

383 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Bittner v. Tri-Cty. Toyota, Inc., 569 N.E.2d 464 (Ohio 1991)).

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 8
[ 9 ]

a. Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

54. Defendant has committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation 

of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A), by engaging in acts and practices in violation of the 

FDCPA as set forth above.

55. Such acts and practices have been previously determined by Ohio courts 

to violate the CSPA, R.C. 1345.01 et seq. See, e.g., Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., 

Inc., No. 1:07-CV-919, 2008 WL 1775251, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 15, 2008) (“[A]ny

violation of any one of the enumerated sections of the FDCPA is necessarily an unfair 

and deceptive act or practice in violation of R.C. § 1345.02 and/or § 1345.03”).

56. Defendant committed such actions after such decisions were available for 

public inspection pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(A)(3).

57. Defendant has further committed unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable 

acts or practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and 1345.03(A), by engaging 

in or using unfair means to collect a debt.

58. Defendant has committed unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts or 

practices in violation of the CSPA by communicating with Plaintiff after being told to 

stop and by placing an oppressive number of telephone calls to Plaintiff.

59. Such acts and practices have been previously determined by Ohio courts 

to violate the CSPA. See, e.g., State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Scandinavian Health Spa, Inc., No. 

CV863-1158, 1986 WL 363150, at *2 (Ohio Com. Pl. Mar. 31, 1986) (“A supplier who, in 

its collection of consumer debts, engages in acts, the natural consequence of which is to 

harass consumers violates O.R.C. § 1345.02(A)”); State ex rel. Fisher v. Lasson, No. CV 92 

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 9
[ 10 ]

10 0193, 1994 WL 912252, at *5 (Ohio Com. Pl. Oct. 14, 1994) (repetitive calls can be 

unconscionable).

60. Defendant’s actions therefore violated the CSPA, and Plaintiff is entitled 

to compensation.

b. Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

61. Violations of the TCPA (at least to the extent that they are unfair, 

deceptive, or unconscionable) are violations of the CSPA. See, e.g., Ambrose v. Prime 

Time Enterprises, No. CV 04 547298, 2005 WL 646147, at *1 (Ohio Com. Pl. Feb. 23, 2005); 

Tower City Title Agency, Inc. v. Phillips, 2008-Ohio-957, ¶ 5 (“Ohio courts have found that 

a violation of the TCPA also results in a violation of R.C. 1345.02 of the Ohio CSPA.”).

62. Defendant has violated the CSPA by using pre-recorded voice messages in 

violation of the TCPA, as set forth above.

63. Such acts and practices have been previously determined by Ohio courts 

to violate the CSPA. Defendant committed such actions after such decisions were 

available for public inspection pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(A)(3).

64. Defendant’s actions were unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable under the 

CSPA because they were intended to harass Plaintiff and intimidate her into making 

payments.

65. Defendant’s actions therefore violated the CSPA, and Plaintiff is entitled 

to compensation for each and every violation.

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 10
[ 11 ]

c. Violations of R.C. 1345.02(A) and R.C. 1345.03(A).

66. Defendant has committed unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts or 

practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and 1345.03(A), by engaging in or 

using unfair means to collect a debt.

67. Defendant has committed unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts or 

practices in violation of the CSPA, R.C. 1345.02(A) and 1345.03(A), by communicating 

with Plaintiff after being told to stop and by placing repeated phone calls to Plaintiff

over a period of years.

68. Such acts and practices have been previously determined by Ohio courts 

to violate the CSPA, R.C. 1345.01 et seq. See, e.g., State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Scandinavian 

Health Spa, Inc., No. CV863-1158, 1986 WL 363150, at *2 (Ohio Com. Pl. Mar. 31, 1986) 

(“A supplier who, in its collection of consumer debts, engages in acts, the natural 

consequence of which is to harass consumer’s violates O.R.C. § 1345.02(A)”); State ex rel. 

Fisher v. Lasson, No. CV 92 10 0193, 1994 WL 912252, at *5 (Ohio Com. Pl. Oct. 14, 1994) 

(repetitive calls can be unconscionable).

69. Defendant committed such actions after such decisions were available for 

public inspection pursuant to R.C. 1345.05(A)(3).

COUNT V—INVASION OF PRIVACY

70. Plaintiff restates and realleges the paragraphs above as though fully set 

forth herein.

71. Ohio recognizes a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on 

“wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause 

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 11
[ 12 ]

mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.” Sustin v. 

Fee, 69 Ohio St.2d 143, 145, 431 N.E.2d 992, 993 (Ohio 1982) (quoting Housh v. Peth, 165 

Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1956)).

72. Defendant invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and intruded on her solitude and 

seclusion by intentionally and persistently causing her cellular phone to ring and by 

attempting to contact her when she desired to be left alone.

73. Defendant’s pattern of repeatedly calling Plaintiff in her home basis was 

so outrageous that it would cause shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary 

sensibilities, and Plaintiff was injured by this conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter 

judgment as follows:

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

the aforementioned bodies of law;

b. Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages of $1,000.00 as provided under 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, in an amount to be determined at 

trial, as provided under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1);

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); 

e. Awarding Plaintiff damages in the amount of $500 for each call made in

violation of the TCPA;

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 12
[ 13 ]

f. Awarding Plaintiff treble damages for willful or knowing violations by 

Defendant of the TCPA;

g. Awarding Plaintiff $200 per violation of the CSPA, plus noneconomic 

damages up to $5,000 per violation in an amount to be determined at trial, plus 

reasonable attorney fees;

h. Awarding Plaintiff’s counsel an enhancement or multiplier of attorney 

fees pursuant to the CSPA; 

i. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action; and

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

appropriate.

A TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED.

Dated: June 19, 2018 

By: s/ Jonathan Hilton

Jonathan Hilton (0095742)

HILTON PARKER LLC

10400 Blacklick-Eastern Rd NW, Suite 110

Pickerington, OH 43147

Tel: (614) 992-2277

Fax: (614) 427-5557

jhilton@hiltonparker.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00599-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/18/18 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 13