1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 222020) 

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192 

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

43 Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT 06897 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Shalandra Cotton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Shalandra Cotton, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

FOR VIOLATIONS OF: 

1. THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT; 

2. THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT 

COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7
2 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff, Shalandra Cotton (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, 

brings the following complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereafter 

“Defendant”) and alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), and repeated 

violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, 

et seq. (“Rosenthal Act”). 

2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

3. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), where 

the acts and transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district and/or 

where Defendant transacts business in this district. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Oakland, California, and is a 

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

5. Defendant is a business entity located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and 

is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39) and Cal Civ. Code § 

1788.2(g) . 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 7
3 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6. Defendant, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of 

itself or others, engages in the collection of consumer debts, and is a “debt collector” 

as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c). 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

7. Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt asserted to 

be owed to Defendant. 

8. Plaintiff’s alleged obligation arises from a transaction in which property, 

services or money was acquired on credit primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes and is a “consumer debt” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(f). 

9. At all times mentioned herein where Defendant communicated with any 

person via telephone, such communication was done via Defendant’s agent, 

representative or employee. 

10. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff utilized a cellular telephone 

service and was assigned the following telephone number: 209-XXX-6425 (hereafter 

“Number”). 

11. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s Number in an attempt to collect a 

debt. 

12. The aforementioned calls were placed using an automatic telephone 

dialing system (“ATDS”) and/or by using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

(“Robocalls”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 7
4 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13. When Plaintiff answers Defendant’s calls, she hears a period of silence 

before the call terminates, or, when Defendant leaves a voicemail, Plaintiff hears 

“clicks” followed by silence. 

14. At no time has Plaintiff provided Defendant with her Number in 

association with the alleged debt Defendant is calling about. 

15. At no time has Plaintiff provided Defendant with the requisite consent to 

dial her Number using an ATDS. 

16. Defendant’s calls directly and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s 

right to peacefully enjoy a service that Plaintiff paid for and caused Plaintiff to suffer 

a significant amount of anxiety, frustration and annoyance. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

18. The TCPA prohibits Defendant from using, other than for emergency 

purposes, an ATDS and/or Robocalls when calling Plaintiff’s Number absent 

Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

19. Defendant’s telephone system has the earmark of using an ATDS in that 

Plaintiff, upon answering calls from Defendant, heard silence before Defendant’s 

system attempted to connect Plaintiff with a live representative. 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 7
5 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

20. Defendant called Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS without Plaintiff’s 

consent in that Defendant either never had Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so or 

such consent was effectively revoked when Plaintiff requested that Defendant cease 

all further calls. 

21. Defendant continued to willfully call Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS 

knowing that it lacked the requisite consent to do so in violation of the TCPA. 

22. Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s 

actions. 

23. The TCPA creates a private right of action against persons who violate 

the Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

24. As a result of each call made in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages. 

25. As a result of each call made knowingly and/or willingly in violation of 

the TCPA, Plaintiff may be entitled to an award of treble damages. 

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq.

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

27. The Rosenthal Act was passed to prohibit debt collectors from engaging 

in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the collection of consumer debts. 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 7
6 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

28. Defendant caused Plaintiff’s telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously 

to annoy Plaintiff, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(d). 

29. Defendant communicated with Plaintiff with such frequency as to be 

unreasonable, constituting harassment, in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.11(e). 

30. Plaintiff was harmed and is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s 

violations. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each call determined to be in violation 

of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); 

B. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or 

knowing under the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); 

C. Actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(a); 

D. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 for knowingly and willfully committing 

violations pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(b);

E. Costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1788.30(c); 

F. Punitive damages; and 

G. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 7
7 

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DATED: January 12, 2017 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Aaron Martinez 

Case 3:17-cv-00161-MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 7