- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Samuel Callantine

Plaintiffs,

v.

Medicredit, Inc.

Defendant.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

UNDER THE FAIR DEBT 

COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 

THE TELEPHONE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

PROTECTION ACT, AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED 

HEREIN

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Samuel Callantine (“Mr. Callantine”), is a natural person who resided 

in Elkhart, Indiana at all times relevant to this action.

2. Defendant, Medicredit, Inc. (“Medicredit”), is a Missouri Corporation that 

maintained its principal place of business in Missouri at all times relevant to 

this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over 

this matter as it arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 1 of 10
- 2 -

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper because a substantial part 

of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

5. At all times relevant to this action, Medicredit collected consumer debts.

6. Medicredit regularly uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the 

mails to collect consumer debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due 

another.

7. The principal source of Medicredit’s revenue is debt collection.

8. Medicredit is a "debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

9. As described, infra, Medicredit contacted Plaintiff to collect a debt that was 

incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

10. The obligation Medicredit was seeking to collect is a “debt” as defined by 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

11. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

12. Before Medicredit began contacting Plaintiff, it and Plaintiff had no prior 

business relationship and Plaintiff never provided express consent to 

Medicredit to be contacted on his cellular telephone.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 2 of 10
- 3 -

13. Within the past twelve (12) months, Medicredit called Plaintiff on multiple 

occasions in connection with the collection of a debt.

14. On several occasions, the dates of which will be discovered through 

discovery, Medicredit used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to 

call Plaintiff on his cellular phone multiple times in violation of the TCPA.

15. Medicredit used a predictive dialer system to call Plaintiff. See Prater v. 

Medicredit, 45 F.Supp.3d 1038 (2014 E.D. Mo.).

16. Plaintiff communicated his desire that Medicredit cease calling him.

17. On one occasion Mr. Callantine explained he was going into surgery; he was 

on medical leave; that he did not have any extra income and can not pay 

Medicredit anything; and that Medicredit should stop calling.

18. Notwithstanding these communications, Medicredit continued to call each 

Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt until at least January 16, 

2015.

19. Medicredit’s agents have the ability to immediately stop further calls to 

consumers, but the policy of Medicredit is to allow its predictive dialer to 

continue calling a consumer following a “cease calling” request until a future 

date.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 3 of 10
- 4 -

APPLICABLE LAW

20. Section 1692d of the FDCPA provides, in part:

A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in 

connection with the collection of a debt.

See 15 U.S.C. §1692d.

21. Where a consumer has communicated his desire that a debt collector stop 

calling, and the debt collector nevertheless continues to call the consumer, the 

volume and pattern of the calls may evidence intent to harass in violation of 

Section 1692d. See Majeski v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1830, 

*5-7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2010).

22. Section 1692f of the FDCPA provides, in part:

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect any debt.

See 15 U.S.C. §1692f.

23. Where a question exists as to whether a debt collector’s alleged misconduct 

violates Section 1692f or some other section of the FDCPA, the prudent 

course at the pre-trial stage is to allow the consumer to pursue claims under 

both sections. See Davis v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 87867, *25 (D. Mass. June 27, 2014); citing Rush v. Portfolio 

Recovery Associates, LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414, 432 (D.N.J. 2013).

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 4 of 10
- 5 -

24. Medicredit’s maintenance of policies and practices, which in themselves

violate the FDCPA, are further evidence of Medicredit’s intent to harass. See 

Anchondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Associates, L.L.C., 256 F.R.D. 661, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32369 (D. N.M. Mar. 16, 2009) (debt collector’s intent to 

violate the FDCPA may be inferred by its maintenance of policies and 

procedures which, in themselves, violate the FDCPA); see also Kromelbein v. 

Envision Payment Solutions, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107762, *18 (M.D. 

Penn. Aug. 1, 2013)(“company policy can be just as much a violation of 

[FDCPA] as the rogue act of an individual employee. If anything, a company 

policy that violates the FDCPA is a more egregious transgression because it 

indicates endemic, rather than isolated, disregard for debtor rights.”).

25.The TCPA provides, in part:

(b) RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF AUTOMATED 

TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.—

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—It shall be unlawful for any person 

within the United States, or any person outside the United 

States if the recipient is within the United States—

(A) 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 automatic 

telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded 

voice—

* * *

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 5 of 10
- 6 -

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging 

service, cellular telephone service, specialized 

mobile radio service, or other radio common 

carrier service, or any service for which the called 

party is charged for the call...

47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

26.The term “called party,” as used in Section 227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA, refers to 

the person or entity subscribing to the called number at the time the telephone 

call is made. See Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1251-52 

(11th Cir. 2014).

27. The TCPA provides, in part:

If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated 

this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the 

court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an 

amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under 

subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

28.The Communications Act of 1943, of which the TCPA is a part, defines 

“willful” as “the conscious or deliberate commission or omission of such act, 

irrespective of any intent to violate any provision[], rule or regulation....” 47 

U.S.C. § 312(f).

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 6 of 10
- 7 -

29.In order to establish a “willful” or “knowing” violation of the TCPA, a plaintiff 

need not demonstrate that the defendant intended to violate the statute, or that it 

knew or should have known it was violating the statute. See Roylance v. ALG 

Real Est. Servs., Inc. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44930, *31 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 

2015) Bridgeview Health Care Ctr. Ltd. v. Clark, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

37310, *21-22 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2013); Steward v. Regent Asset Mgmt. 

Solutions, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50046, *18-20 (N.D. Ga. 2011).

30.Instead, a plaintiff need only show that the defendant engaged in a “voluntary 

act” that violated the TCPA. See Bridgeview, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *21-

22; see also Roylance, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *31 (intentionally making 

phone calls that violated TCPA, without intent to violate the statute, was 

sufficient to warrant treble damages).

31.In addition, a company that places telephone calls using an ATDS and/or an 

artificial or prerecorded voice bears a responsibility to place intermittent live 

verification calls to ensure the subscriber being called has provided his or her 

express consent to be called. See Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. 

Supp. 1316, 1322 (S.D. Fla 2012).

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 7 of 10
- 8 -

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

32. In 2014, Medicredit began calling Mr. Callantine on his cellular phone in an 

attempt to collect a debt.

33. Mr. Callantine communicated his desire that Medicredit cease calling him. 

34. Notwithstanding this communication, Medicredit continued to call him

multiple times on his cellular phone in connection with the collection of a 

debt within the last twelve months. 

35. Medicredit continued to call him resulting in harassment and abuse.

36. Medicredit caused Mr. Callantine emotional distress.

37. Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d by engaging in conduct the natural 

consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse him in connection with 

the collection of the debt.

38. Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect the debt.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 8 of 10
- 9 -

COUNT TWO

Violation of the Telephone Communication Protection Act

39. Mr. Callantine was the “called party” within the meaning of Section 

227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA.

40. Medicredit violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) on multiple and separate 

occasions by each time calling Mr. Callantine’s cellular telephone using an 

ATDS without his prior express consent.

41. Medicredit voluntarily placed telephone calls to his cellular telephone using 

an ATDS.

42. Medicredit willfully and knowingly violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) on 

multiple and separate occasions by each time calling Mr. Callantine’s cellular 

telephone using an ATDS without his prior express consent or after such 

consent had been revoked.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Samuel Callantine, prays for the following relief:

a. Judgment against Defendant for actual damages, statutory damages, 

and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 9 of 10
- 10 -

b. An order enjoining Defendant from placing further telephone calls to 

this Plaintiff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

c. Judgment against Defendant for statutory damages pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) for each and every call Defendant made in 

violation of the TCPA.

d. For such other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems 

appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA

By: /s/ David M. Menditto

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

David M. Menditto

Hyslip & Taylor LLC LPA

1100 W. Cermak St. Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

(312) 508-5480

DavidM@fairdebt411.com

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00620-PPS-JEM document 1 filed 12/28/15 page 10 of 10