1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JAMES ELLIOT CULP,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00144

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF PURSUANT

TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, JAMES ELLIOT CULP (“Plaintiff”), by and through his 

attorneys, Consumer Law Partners, LLC (“CLP”), complaining of BUSINESS & 

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (“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 3:16-cv-00144-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 03/13/16 page 1 of 5
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a 59 year old natural person residing at 60986 County Road 21, Goshen, 

Indiana, which lies in the Northern District of Indiana.

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

6. Plaintiff suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) which 

significantly limits his ability to work. He has not held steady employment in several years.

7. From its headquarters at 529 S. 2nd Street, Elkhart, Indiana, Defendant is in the business 

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

8. Defendant is an Indiana corporation and is licensed with the Indiana Secretary of State 

bearing control number 1990080564 and is in the business of collecting consumer debts in 

Indiana.

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, Defendant identifies itself as a debt collector and has been a 

member of The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals since 1987.1

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

11. In 2015, Plaintiff received treatment related to his COPD from Rebecca Stichter 

(“Stichter”), a nurse practitioner with Indiana University Health Goshen Physicians. See

attached Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an affidavit signed by Plaintiff.

12. Due to his meager income, Plaintiff was not able to pay Stichter for the medical services 

that he received (“subject consumer debt), resulting in his default.

 

1

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

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00144-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 03/13/16 page 2 of 5
3

13. Upon information and belief, Stichter turned the collection of the subject consumer debt 

over to Defendant after Plaintiff was in default.

14. Plaintiff started receiving correspondences and phone calls from Defendant in 2015 

seeking payment on the subject consumer debt. See Exhibit A.

15. On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff called Defendant to seek information about the subject 

consumer debt and advise that he could not make payment. Id.

16. Upon calling Defendant, Plaintiff was connected to a male representative that did not 

disclose his name. 

17. After Plaintiff provided his name and address to Defendant, he was advised that it was 

contacting him regarding the subject consumer debt in the amount of $108.50. Id.

18. Defendant sought payment on the subject consumer debt from Plaintiff.

19. After Plaintiff advised that he was unable to work and in the process of applying for 

disability, Defendant stated that he should call once he could make payment.

20. At no point during the March 9, 2016 phone conversation did Defendant advise Plaintiff 

that it was a debt collector or that any information it gained would be used for the purpose of 

collecting on a debt. Id.

21. Plaintiff has severe cognitive impairments which prevent him from processing 

information quickly. 

22. Plaintiff engaged the services of CLP to bring the instant action.

23. Plaintiff has incurred costs and expenses consulting with his attorneys as a direct result 

of Defendant's collection actions.

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

25. Plaintiff has been misled by Defendant's collection actions.

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00144-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 03/13/16 page 3 of 5
4

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully set forth herein. 

27. 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: (11) 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 and e(11).

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

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

28. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, e(11), and f during the March 9, 2016 call with 

Plaintiff. As evidenced by Plaintiff’s affidavit, Defendant did not advise him it was a debt 

collector that was attempting to collect on a debt at any point during the conversation. This 

disclosure is mandated by the FDCPA in all communications between debt collectors and 

consumers. Additionally, Defendant did not advise Plaintiff that any information it gained as a 

result of the conversation would be used for the purpose of collecting on the subject consumer 

debt. Plaintiff suffers from cognitive impairments which reduced his ability to comprehend the 

party he was speaking with. Defendant further confused Plaintiff’s understanding by failing to 

advise the true nature of its relationship to the subject consumer debt.

29. As a sophisticated and experienced debt collector, Defendant knows that it is required to 

make these disclosures to Plaintiff. Due to the absence of these disclosures, Defendant’s 

communication was misleading and sought to gain an unfair advantage over Plaintiff. At the 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00144-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 03/13/16 page 4 of 5
5

time of the call with Defendant, Plaintiff did not realize that it was acting as a debt collector. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant routinely fails to advise consumers of its status as a debt collector 

during its telephonic collection activity.

30. As plead in paragraphs 22 and 25, Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s illegal

collection actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JAMES ELLIOT CULP, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in his 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: March 13, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq., #630210

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

davidkalin@aol.com

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00144-TLS-CAN document 1 filed 03/13/16 page 5 of 5