1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

BARBARA HARWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY 

ASSOCIATES, LLC

Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-374

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF PURSUANT

TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, BARBARA HARWELL (“Plaintiff”), by and through her

attorneys, Consumer Law Partners, LLC (“CLP”) complaining of PORTFOLIO RECOVERY 

ASSOCIATES, 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”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227

(“TCPA”), and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, I.C. 24-5-0.5 et seq. (“IDCSA”) for 

Defendant's unlawful collection practices.

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 15 U.S.C §1692, 47 U.S.C. §227, 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 

1337, as the action arises under the laws of the United States and supplemental jurisdiction exists 

for the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 1 of 9
2

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. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a 50 year old natural person, residing at 625 W. Blaine Avenue, Elkhart, Indiana, 

which is located within the Northern District of Indiana.

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

6. Defendant is a third party debt buyer and collection agency with its headquarters located 

at 120 Corporate Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia.

1

 Defendant is in the business of purchasing and 

collecting delinquent consumer debts of others, including debts allegedly owed by Plaintiff. 

7. Defendant is licensed with the Indiana Secretary of State under control number 

2001102500046 and is in the business of buying and collecting consumer debts in multiple states,

including Indiana.

8. 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.

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

been a member of the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals since 1997.

2

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

10. In early 2015, Plaintiff began receiving mail correspondence from Defendant regarding a 

number of delinquent consumer debts that she had incurred.

 

1 http://www.portfoliorecovery.com/index.html

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

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 2 of 9
3

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant purchased the collection rights to various 

delinquent consumer accounts of Plaintiff’s. See attached Exhibit A are true and correct copies of 

collection letters sent to Plaintiff by Defendant. 3

12. In addition to the letters, Defendant also started making collection phone calls to Plaintiff 

attempting to collect on the subject consumer debts.

13. All the collection calls from Defendant were placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

number, (574) 343-9512.

14. On April 13, 2015, due to various medical conditions, Plaintiff was forced to go on leave 

from her job with Elkhart General Hospital.4

15. Lacking income, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she could not make payment on the 

subject consumer debts and demanded that they cease contacting her. 

16. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests to cease contacting her, Defendant continued its calls 

to her cellular phone.

17. Frustrated over Defendant’s continuing attempts to collect on the subject consumer debts, 

Plaintiff spoke with CLP regarding her legal rights.

18. On July 27, 2015, CLP mailed a letter to Defendant specifically advising it that Plaintiff 

was represented by counsel and to cease any direct contact with her. See attached Exhibit B is a 

true and correct copy of CLP’s letter and proof of mailing.

19. On August 14, 2015 at 4:30 pm EST, Plaintiff received a collection call from Defendant 

attempting to collect on the subject consumer debts. See attached Exhibit C is a true and correct 

copy of a screen shot taken from Plaintiff’s cellular phone.

 

3 Several of Defendant’s collection letters misidentify Plaintiff as “BARB A AARWELL”.

4 Plaintiff is currently awaiting a decision from her employer on whether she will receive disability income or be 

able to return to work.

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 3 of 9
4

20. The number that Defendant used to call Plaintiff was (205) 238-6074. See Exhibit C.

21. The August 14 collection call was placed to Plaintiff 18 days after CLP’s letter was sent 

to Defendant. 

22. Armed with the knowledge that Defendant would not cease its collection actions despite 

a written demand from her attorneys, Plaintiff instructed CLP to initiate the instant proceedings.

23. Plaintiff has grown increasingly overwhelmed and frustrated by Defendant’s collection 

actions and her inability to pay the subject consumer debts.

24. Plaintiff’s physical condition has been worsened by Defendant’s collection actions.

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

Defendant's collection actions.

26. Plaintiff has been inconvenienced and harassed by Defendant's collection actions.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

27. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth herein. 

28. Generally, the FDCPA limits a debt collector’s ability to communicate with a consumer 

in certain circumstances. 

29. Specifically, a debt collector cannot communicate with a consumer in connection with the 

collection of any debt “if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with 

respect to such debt, and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain such attorney’s name and 

address.” 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(2).

30. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692c(a)(2) and f through its debt collection actions

when it continued to contact Plaintiff directly, despite knowledge that she was represented by an 

attorney. CLP mailed correspondence to Defendant in order to explicitly inform them that Plaintiff 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 4 of 9
5

was represented by counsel. In fact, the correspondence sent to Defendant referenced the specific 

statute that is the subject of this lawsuit. See Exhibit B.

31. Defendant, as an experienced and sophisticated debt collector, should have immediately 

ceased all direct communications with Plaintiff when it received the correspondence from CLP. 

Rather than deal directly with Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant has attempted to circumvent CLP’s 

involvement and continue to collect on the subject consumer debts directly from an unsophisticated 

and downtrodden consumer.

32. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692e and f through its debt collection actions when it 

sent Plaintiff collection letters misstating Plaintiff’s name. As evidenced by Exhibit B, Defendant 

sent misleading and confusing statements to Plaintiff. Any assertion by Defendant that the 

misrepresentations were simply the result of a typo is undercut by the fact that it also sent Plaintiff 

statements with her correct name. 

33. The above conduct by Defendant was harassing and unfair. It was engaged in to pray on 

the vulnerability of a downtrodden and unsophisticated consumer. Using the above tactics during 

debt collection is the exact type of conduct that the FDCPA aims to protect against. 

34. As plead in paragraphs 23 through 26, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s illegal

collection actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BARBARA HARWELL, 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);

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 5 of 9
6

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.

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

35. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as though fully set forth herein. 

36. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) prohibits calling persons on their

cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(iii). 

The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity...to store or produce telephone 

numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.” 

47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1).

37. Defendant violated the TCPA by placing phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone using an

ATDS without her consent.

38. Plaintiff never gave Defendant consent to automatically dial her cellular phone. Any 

consent that may (emphasis added) have been given by Plaintiff to any party associated with the 

subject consumer debts was vehemently revoked. Plaintiff repeatedly requested that Defendant 

cease contacting her during the collection calls. Additionally, CLP’s letter of representation to 

Defendant specifically revoked consent for Plaintiff’s cellular phone to be automatically dialed.

39. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to plaintiff for at least $500.00 

per call. Moreover, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C), Defendant’s willful and knowing 

violation of the TCPA should trigger this Honorable Court’s ability to triple the damages to which 

Plaintiff is otherwise entitled to under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BARBARA HARWELL, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor as follows:

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 6 of 9
7

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

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Award Plaintiff damages of at least $500.00 per phone call and treble damages pursuant to 

47 U.S.C. §§227(b)(3)(B)&(C);

c. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees; and

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

COUNT III --VIOLATIONS OF THE 

INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT

40. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as though fully set forth herein. 

41. Defendant violated I.C. 24-5-0.5-3(b)(19) and (20) by engaging in an unfair, abusive, and 

deceptive practice in its attempts to collect on the subject consumer debts. 

42. The IDCSA states:

A supplier may not commit an unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, 

omission, or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. 

Such an act, omission, or practice by a supplier is a violation of this 

chapter whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction. An 

act, omission, or practice prohibited by this section includes both 

implicit and explicit misrepresentations. 

I.C. 24-5-0.5-3(a).

Without limiting the scope of subsection (a), the following acts, and 

the following representations as to the subject matter of a consumer 

transaction, made orally, in writing, or by electronic 

communication, by a supplier are deceptive acts: The violation by a 

supplier of 47 U.S.C. 227, including any rules or regulations issued 

under 47 U.S.C. 227. The violation by a supplier of the federal Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.), including 

any rules or regulations issued under the federal Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.). I.C. 24-5-0.5-

3(b)(19) and (20).

43. Plaintiff is a person as defined by the IDCSA, I.C. 24-5-0.5-2(a)(2).

44. Defendant is a supplier as defined by the IDCSA, I.C. 24-5-0.5-2(a)(3).

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 7 of 9
8

45. Defendant’s attempts to collect on the subject consumer debts are consumer transactions 

as defined by IDCSA, I.C. 24-5-0.5-2(a)(1)(C).

46. Defendant engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive behavior in its transactions with 

Plaintiff. 

47. Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its illegal behavior in order to procure payment 

of the subject consumer debt. 

48. IDCSA was designed to protect consumers, such as Plaintiff, from the exact behavior 

committed by Defendant.

49. IDCSA further states:

A person relying upon an uncured or incurable deceptive act may 

bring an action for the damages actually suffered as a consumer as 

a result of the deceptive act or five hundred dollars ($500), 

whichever is greater. The court may increase damages for a willful 

deceptive act in an amount that does not exceed the greater of: (1) 

three (3) times the actual damages of the consumer suffering the 

loss; or (2) one thousand dollars ($1,000). I.C. 24-5-0.5-4(a)(1)(2).

50. As pled in paragraphs 23 through 26 Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of 

Defendant’s unlawful collection practices.

51. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to I.C. 24-5-0.5-4(a)(1)(2).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BARBARA HARWELL, 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 damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, as provided under I.C. 

24-5-0.5-4(a)(1)(2);

c. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under I.C. 24-5-0.5-4(a);

and

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

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 8 of 9
9

Dated: August 20, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. #6302103

David S. Klain, Esq. #66305

Counsel for Plaintiff

Licensed 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)

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cv-00374-JVB-CAN document 1 filed 08/20/15 page 9 of 9