[ 1 ]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

JESSICA WILLIAMS,

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL REVENUE 

CORPORATION,

 

 Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-188

JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Now comes JESSICA WILLIAMS (“Plaintiff”), complaining as to the conduct of 

GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION (“Defendant”), as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (“FDCPA”) under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and 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. Subject 

matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C. § 1692, 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: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 1 of 8 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 a substantial portion of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this District.

PARTIES

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

5. Defendant is a third-party debt collector incorporated in Ohio. Defendant 

regularly collects upon consumers located in the state of Ohio.

6. 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

7. On or about April 18, 2018, Plaintiff began receiving calls to her cellular 

phone from Defendant.

8. Defendant is attempting to collect upon a student loan debt.

9. Defendant often calls Plaintiff at 11:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M.

10. Plaintiff has informed Defendant that she is at work during these times,

and she has told Defendant not to call at those times.

11. Defendant has continued to call Plaintiff at these inconvenient times, with 

knowledge that these times are inconvenient to Plaintiff.

12. Defendant has not sent any written notices to Plaintiff regarding the 

alleged debt.

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 2
[ 3 ]

13. On or about April 18, 2018, Defendant called Plaintiff’s grandfather. 

During this phone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff’s grandfather that it was 

attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff.

14. On or about April 18, 2018, Defendant called Plaintiff’s father. During this 

phone call, Defendant informed Plaintiff’s father that it was attempting to collect a debt

from Plaintiff.

15. Defendant has sent letters to Plaintiff’s father’s house regarding Plaintiff’s 

debt, subjecting Plaintiff to humiliation and embarrassment.

16. Defendant has continued to call Plaintiff’s father into May 2018.

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

including but not limited to humiliation, embarrassment, 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

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

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

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

because it regularly uses the mail and/or telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, 

delinquent consumer accounts.

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 3
[ 4 ]

21. 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.

22. 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, namely a student loan debt.

a. Violations of FDCPA § 1692c.

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

from communicating with a consumer “at any . . . time or place known . . . to be 

inconvenient to the consumer.” 

24. Defendant violated § 1692c when it continued to contact Plaintiff during 

her working hours after Plaintiff informed Defendant that these times were 

inconvenient.

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

from “communicat[ing], in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person 

other than the consumer, his attorney, [or] a consumer reporting agency.”

26. Defendant violated § 1692c(b) when it communicated about Plaintiff’s 

alleged debt with Plaintiff’s father and grandfather without Plaintiff’s consent. 

b. Violations of FDCPA § 1692d.

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

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

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

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 4
[ 5 ]

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.”

28. Defendant violated § 1692d when it repeatedly called Plaintiff to engage 

her in conversation.

29. The purpose of these repeated phone calls was to harass and annoy 

Plaintiff.

30. Defendant was notified by Plaintiff that its calls were not welcomed. As 

such, Defendant knew that its conduct would be harassing to her, particularly those 

calls placed to Plaintiff while she was at work.

c. Violations of FDCPA § 1692g.

31. The FDCPA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, mandates that a debt collector 

shall “[w]ithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection 

with the collection of any debt . . . send the consumer a written notice.”

32. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g when it failed to send a written 

notice to Plaintiff within five days of its initial contact.

COUNT II—VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT

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

34. 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.”

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

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 5
[ 6 ]

36. 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).

37. Debt collection upon a student loan debt is a “consumer transaction” as 

defined by R.C. 1345.01(A).

38. 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.

39. 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.

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

to violate the CSPA, and these opinions have been made available for public inspection.

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”) (PIF # 2653).

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

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

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 6
[ 7 ]

COUNT III—INVASION OF PRIVACY

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

43. 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 

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)).

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

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

the Defendant knew to be inconvenient to Plaintiff. 

45. Defendant further invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by communicating about 

her alleged debt with her father and grandfather.

46. These actions caused mental suffering, shame, and humiliation to Plaintiff 

as they would to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in her favor 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);

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 7
[ 8 ]

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

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); 

e. Awarding Plaintiff $200 in statutory damages and up to $5,000 in 

noneconomic damages per violation of the CSPA;

f. Awarding Plaintiff attorney fees together with an appropriate multiplier 

for time expended pursuing her CSPA claims;

g. Awarding Plaintiff damages for the invasion of her privacy rights; and 

h. Awarding any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and 

appropriate.

Dated: May 30, 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

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 3:18-cv-00188-WHR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/30/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 8