1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

DONALD IRELAND, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) No.

) 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ) 

) 

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, DONALD IRELAND, (“Plaintiff”) files this lawsuit for damages, and other legal 

and equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC 

(“Defendant”), in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 

("TCPA"). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff’s claims arise

under the laws of the United States.

2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction because this case arises out of violations of

federal law. 47 U.S.C. §227(b); Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012).

3. Defendant conducts business in North Manchester, Wabash County, Indiana.

4. Venue and personal jurisdiction in this District are proper because Defendant transacts

business in this District, and a material portion of the events at issue occurred in this

District.

3:16-cv-500

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00500-JD-JEM document 1 filed 07/28/16 page 1 of 5
2 

PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff, is a resident of North Manchester, Wabash County, Indiana.

6. Defendant is a limited liability company based in Lewisville, Texas. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Within four (4) years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone xxx-xxx-1675 to collect on Plaintiff’s alleged debt. 

8. All of the telephone calls Defendant made to Plaintiff were an attempt to collect on 

Plaintiff’s alleged debt. 

9. None of the calls Defendant made to Plaintiff were for an emergency purpose. 

10. Within four (4) years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone from the following telephone number: 888-811-5279. 

11. The following telephone number is Defendant’s phone number: 888-811-5279. 

12. On or about June 29, 2016, Plaintiff requested Defendant stop calling Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone. 

13. Despite Plaintiff’s request that Defendant stop calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 

Defendant continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

14. Prior to calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, Defendant knew the number was a cellular 

telephone number. 

15. All of the calls Defendants made to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone resulted in Plaintiff 

incurring a charge for incoming calls. 

16. During at least one conversation, Defendant learned that Plaintiff wanted Defendant to 

stop calling Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

17. Even if at one point Defendant had permission to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00500-JD-JEM document 1 filed 07/28/16 page 2 of 5
3 

Plaintiff revoked this consent. 

18. Defendant continued to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone after Defendant knew Plaintiff 

wanted the calls to stop. 

19. On several occasions, Plaintiff has answered calls from Defendant and been greeted by an 

automated message. 

20. Within 4 years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant used an automatic telephone 

dialing system to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

21. Within 4 years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone in predictive mode. 

22. Within 4 years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant left pre-recorded voicemail 

messages for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

23. Within 4 years of Plaintiff filing this Complaint, Defendant left voicemail messages from 

live operators for Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

24. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the 

capacity to store telephone numbers. 

25. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the 

capacity to call stored telephone numbers automatically. 

26. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the 

capacity to call stored telephone numbers without human intervention. 

27. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the 

capacity to call telephone numbers in sequential order. 

28. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the 

capacity to call telephone numbers randomly. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00500-JD-JEM document 1 filed 07/28/16 page 3 of 5
4 

29. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone selects 

telephone numbers to be called according to a protocol or strategy entered by Defendant. 

30. The telephone dialer system Defendant used to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

simultaneously calls multiple consumers. 

31. While Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, Plaintiff’s cellular telephone line 

was unavailable for legitimate use during the unwanted calls. 

DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE 

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

32. Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA by: 

a. Placing non-emergency telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an 

automatic telephone dialing system and/or pre-recorded or artificial voice in 

violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DONALD IRELAND, respectfully requests judgment be entered 

against Defendant, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC for the following: 

33. As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1), Plaintiff is entitled 

to and requests $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B). 

34. As a result of Defendant’s willful and/or knowing violations of 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1), 

Plaintiff is entitled to and requests treble damages, as provided by statute, up to $1,500.00, 

for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. 

227(b)(3)(C). 

35. Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future. 

36. Any other relief that this Honorable Court deems appropriate. 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00500-JD-JEM document 1 filed 07/28/16 page 4 of 5
5 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

July 25, 2016 By: /s/ Samantha Craig_____________ 

 Samantha Craig 

SBN: 32375-32 

 Agruss Law Firm, LLC 

 4809 N. Ravenswood Ave. 

 Suite 419 

 Chicago, IL 60640 

 Tel: 312-224-4695 

 Fax: 312-253-4451 

 samantha@agrusslawfirm.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00500-JD-JEM document 1 filed 07/28/16 page 5 of 5