1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

TAMEKA DESHELL MAXSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-00047

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF PURSUANT

TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, TAMEKA DESHELL MAXSON (“Plaintiff”), by and 

through her attorneys, Consumer Law Partners, LLC (“CLP”), complaining of CAINE & 

WEINER COMPANY, LLC (“Defendant”), as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) for Defendant's unlawful collection practices.

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.

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

business in the Northern District of Indiana and all of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claims occurred within the Northern District of Indiana.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 1 of 7
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a 39 year old natural person residing at 1871 Summertime Lane, Apartment 6, 

Lafayette, Indiana, which falls within the Northern District of Indiana.

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by §1692a(3) of the FDCPA.

6. Plaintiff suffers from a variety of mental issues including bi-polar disorder, depression, 

anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Due to her various conditions, Plaintiff is unable to 

work and am currently in the process of applying for disability income through the Social 

Security Administration.

7. Defendant identifies itself as “a solution-based accounts receivable management 

company that provides credit and collection services to America’s leading companies.”

1

 From 

its office at 1699 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 360, Schaumberg, Illinois, Defendant is in the 

business of collecting consumer debts for others, including a consumer debt owed by Plaintiff. 

8. Defendant is an Illinois corporation that is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State 

bearing file number 00439576.

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

regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent 

consumer accounts.

10. On its correspondences and website, Defendant identifies itself as a debt collector and 

has been a member of the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals since 2001.2

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

11. During the year 2013, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease agreement with KCB 

Property Management, LLC (“KCB”) for an apartment located at 501B Hickory Lane, 

 

1 http://www.caine-weiner.com/about-us/

2 http://www.acainternational.org/memberdirectory.aspx

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 2 of 7
3

Monticello, Indiana. See attached Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an affidavit signed by 

Plaintiff.

12. Due to the theft of Plaintiff’s savings by her ex-husband, she defaulted on her 

contractual lease obligations to KCB. See attached Exhibit A.

13. In response to Plaintiff’s default, KCB3caused to be filed eviction proceedings against 

her on or around October 11, 2013 in the White County Superior Court under case number 

91D01-1310-SC-000565 (“small claims case”). See attached Exhibit B is a true and correct copy 

of the docket for the small claims case.

14. Because she did not participate in the small claims case, KCB was able to obtain a 

default judgment against Plaintiff and she was eventually evicted from the apartment. See

Exhibit B.

15. With the goal of assessing her financial liabilities, Plaintiff pulled her credit report on 

June 2, 2016. See Exhibit A.

16. Listed on Plaintiff’s credit report was an entry in the amount of $4,462.00 that 

referenced KCB. The party whose name the entry appeared under was Defendant, an agency 

that Plaintiff was not familiar with. Id.

17. Upon information and belief, KCB engaged the services of Defendant following 

Plaintiff’s default.

18. Seeking additional information, Plaintiff looked up Defendant’s telephone number and 

found (847) 407-2320. On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff called Defendant and was first connected with 

a female representative who did not disclose her name. Id.

 

3 The named party in the small claims case was S&B Lighthouse Investments, LLC which Plaintiff believes is an 

entity associated with KCB.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 3 of 7
4

19. After giving Defendant her name and telephone number, Plaintiff was transferred to a 

different female representative who advised that the call may be recorded. The second female 

representative also did not disclose her name to Plaintiff. Id.

20. Defendant stated that the balance of Plaintiff’s account was $5,949.66 (“subject 

consumer debt”). Id.

21. At no point during Plaintiff’s conversation with Defendant was she given information 

about the origination of the subject consumer debt. However, Plaintiff believes that it stemmed 

from the default judgment obtained by KCB in the small claims case. Id.

22. During the telephone call, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that if she didn’t pay the 

subject consumer debt, her account would go to a law office and it would take legal action. Id.

23. Defendant further stated that Plaintiff did not want her account to go to legal action 

because attorney fees, court costs, and other fees would be added to the balance of the subject 

consumer debt. Id.

24. At no point during the June 2, 2016 telephone call did Defendant state that it was a debt 

collector or explain what its relationship was to KCB and the subject consumer debt. Id.

25. Concerned and confused over her conversation with Defendant, Plaintiff spoke with 

CLP regarding her rights.

26. Plaintiff has incurred costs and expenses consulting with her attorneys as a result of 

Defendant's collection actions.

27. Plaintiff has suffered financial loss as a result of Defendant’s collection actions.

28. Plaintiff has been unfairly misled and harassed by Defendant's collection actions, 

resulting in the threat of concrete harm.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 4 of 7
5

29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein. 

30. The FDCPA states:

“A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the 

following conduct is a violation of this section: The failure to 

disclose in the initial communication with the consumer and, in 

addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in 

that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting 

to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for 

that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent 

communications that the communication is from a debt collector, 

except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading 

made in connection with a legal action.” 15 U.S.C. §1692e(11).

31. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, e(11), and f during the June 2, 2016 telephone 

call with Plaintiff. During this call, Defendant did not advise Plaintiff that it was acting in the 

capacity of a debt collector with regards to the subject consumer debt. This disclosure is 

mandated by the FDCPA in all communications between debt collectors and consumers that are 

not formal pleadings in connection with a legal action.

32. Given her health problems, Plaintiff is regularly contacted by multiple parties seeking 

payment of debt. These parties include both original creditors as well as third-party agencies. 

The numerous contacts, combined with her mental state, make it very difficult for Plaintiff to 

fully comprehend the exact identity of the party she is speaking to without being properly 

advised. By failing to disclose its identity as a debt collector, Defendant contributed to 

Plaintiff’s confusion. Before observing its name on her credit report, Plaintiff does not recall 

having any interaction with Defendant.

33. As an experience and sophisticated debt collector, Defendant knows that it is required to 

make the above disclosures. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant routinely ignores this disclosure 

during its telephonic debt collection practices. Defendant gains an unfair advantage by failing to 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 5 of 7
6

fully advise of its status as a debt collector as consumers are more likely to pay an original 

creditor than a third-party.

34. The FDCPA states:

“A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural 

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

connection with the collection of a debt.” 15 U.S.C. §1692d.

“A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any 

debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the 

following conduct is in violation of this section: The false 

representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. 

The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a 

consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §§1692e(2)(A) and e(10).

“A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect any debt.” 15 U.S.C. §1692f.

35. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692d, e, e(2)(A), e(10), and f during the June 2, 2016 

telephone call with Plaintiff. During this call, Defendant made multiple references to legal 

action if the subject consumer debt was not paid. However, these statements were false and 

misleading as Defendant had already obtained a default judgment on the subject consumer debt 

by means of the small claims case. 

36. Defendant made references to legal action and the consequences of the same in order to 

coerce Plaintiff into making payment on the subject consumer debt. Defendant generically stated 

that the subject consumer debt was subject to legal action even though proceedings had already 

taken place. Because it already had obtained a judgment almost three years prior and not acted 

on the same, Defendant’s conduct highlighted its willingness to move forward with legal 

collection of the subject consumer debt.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 6 of 7
7

37. The above conduct by Defendant was misleading, harassing, and unfair. As plead in 

paragraphs 25 through 28, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s illegal collection actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, TAMEKA DESHELL MAXSON, 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 statutes and regulations; 

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); and

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

Dated: June 20, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. #6302103

David S. Klain, Esq. #66305

Counsel for Plaintiff

Admitted in the Northern District of Indiana

Consumer Law Partners, LLC

435 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1609

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(267) 422-1000 (phone)

(267) 422-2000 (fax)

nate.v@consumerlawpartners.com

davidklain@aol.com

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00047-JD-PRC document 1 filed 06/20/16 page 7 of 7