1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JULIE ANN KAMINSKI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE GAP, INC.,

 Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF PURSUANT

TO THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

NOW comes JULIE ANN KAMINSKI (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys,

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. (“Sulaiman”), complaining of THE GAP, INC. (“Defendant”), as 

follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act (“TCPA”) under 47 U.S.C. §227 and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“IDCSA”) 

under I.C. 24-5-0.5 for Defendant’s unlawful practices.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the TCPA. Subject matter jurisdiction 

is conferred upon this Court by 47 U.S.C §227, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 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 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 1 of 7
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 a substantial portion the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claims occurred within the Northern District of Indiana.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a 46 year old natural person residing at 4180 Harrison Street, Gary, Indiana, 

which falls within the Northern District of Indiana.

5. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(39) of the TCPA.

6. Defendant, through its stores and other channels, sells clothing as well as offers credit 

card services to its customers. Defendant maintains its headquarters in San Francisco, California 

and regularly conducts business with consumers in Indiana, including Plaintiff

7. Defendant is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §153(39) of the TCPA.

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

8. Plaintiff incurred a consumer credit card from Defendant issued by Synchrony Financial 

which she used to make purchases of clothing for herself and family. See attached Exhibit A is a 

true and correct copy of an affidavit signed by Plaintiff.

9. Over a period of time, Plaintiff made several payments to Defendant on the consumer 

credit card. See Exhibit A.

10. Plaintiff made a final and full payment of $80.79 to Defendant through means of a 

money order. Id.

11. Subsequent to making her final payment, Plaintiff started receiving phone calls from 

Defendant to her cellular phone seeking payment in late 2015. Id.

12. Plaintiff’s cellular phone number is (773) XXX-3622. Id.

13. The number that Defendant has used most often to call Plaintiff is (330) 433-5970. Id.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 2 of 7
3

14. Upon information and belief, the above is a number regularly utilized by Defendant 

during its debt collection activity towards consumers. 

15. When Plaintiff has answered calls from Defendant, she experiences several moments of 

dead air before a live representative begins to speak. Id.

16. During the calls, Defendant has sought payment from Plaintiff claiming that it never 

received her final payment. Id.

17. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff has told Defendant that she did not owe any money and 

demanded that it stop calling her. Id.

18. Despite her pleas, Defendant has continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone seeking 

payment from her. Id.

19. Throughout 2016, Defendant has regularly called Plaintiff. She has received as many as 

six calls during the same day with some calls coming seconds apart. Id.

20. As reference, from February 2, 2016 until February 6, 2016, Plaintiff received 

approximately 20 calls from Defendant. Id.

21. Frustrated with Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff spoke with Sulaiman regarding her rights.

22. Plaintiff suffers from arthritis, diabetes and high blood pressure. The frequent phone 

calls from Defendant have served to cause her stress and worsen her conditions. Id.

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

24. Plaintiff has incurred charges and expenses that she would not have otherwise incurred 

if not for Defendant’s systematic calls, including the loss of cellular phone capacity.

25. Plaintiff has been unfairly harassed by Defendant's actions.

26. Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions.

.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 3 of 7
4

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

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

28. The TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(iii), prohibits calling persons on their

cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) without their consent. 

The TCPA, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), defines an 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.” 

29. Defendant used an ATDS in connection with its communications directed towards 

Plaintiff. The brief pause that Plaintiff experienced during answered calls before being 

connected to a live representative of Defendant is instructive that an ATDS was being used. 

Similarly, the frequency and nature of Defendant’s calls strongly suggests that an ATDS was 

being utilized.

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

an ATDS without her consent. Any consent Plaintiff may have given was explicitly revoked by 

her demands for Defendant to stop calling and notice that the consumer credit card was paid. 

31. The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff were regarding business transactions and not 

for emergency purposes as defined by the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(i).

32. Under the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff

for at least $500.00 per call. Moreover, Defendant’s willful and knowing violations 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, JULIE ANN KAMINSKI, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter judgment in her favor as follows:

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 4 of 7
5

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

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding 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 II – VIOLATIONS OF THE

INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT

33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set forth herein. 

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

deceptive practice through its systematic attempts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff. 

35. 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.” I.C. 24-5-0.5-3(b)(19).

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

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

38. Defendant’s attempts to collect against Plaintiff are “consumer transactions” as defined 

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

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 5 of 7
6

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

Plaintiff. Through systematic harassment, Defendant used an ATDS to relentlessly contact 

Plaintiff. Defendant was specifically notified that the debt it was seeking payment of was 

satisfied and to stop contacting Plaintiff. However, Defendant ignored these prompts in an 

abusive attempt to coerce further payment.

40. Placing numerous calls within a short window was abusive to Plaintiff. Defendant 

intended to harass Plaintiff into submission by causing her phone to ring repeatedly.

41. In violating the TCPA, Defendant engaged in illegal behavior during its attempts to 

collect from Plaintiff. Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its illegal behavior. The IDCSA 

was designed to protect consumers, such as Plaintiff, from the exact behavior committed by 

Defendant.

42. The 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).

43. As pled in paragraphs 21 through 26, Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of 

Defendant’s unlawful collection practices.

44. Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to I.C. 24-5-0.5-4(a)(1)(2).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JULIE ANN KAMINSKI, 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; 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 6 of 7
7

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.

Dated: September 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. #6302103

Counsel for Plaintiff

Admitted in the Northern District of Indiana

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150

Oak Brook, Illinois 60523

(630) 575-8181 x113 (phone)

(630) 575-8188 (fax)

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404 document 1 filed 09/15/16 page 7 of 7