1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVSION

TAMEKA DESHELL MAXSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARCADIA RECOVERY BUREAU, LLC,

Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO: 4:16-cv-00060

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

NOW comes, TAMEKA DESHELL MAXSON ("Plaintiff"), by and through her

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

BUREAU, 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-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 1 of 6
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person residing at 1871 Summertime Trail, 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 health issues including bipolar disorder, post-traumatic 

stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. Due to her various conditions, Plaintiff is unable to work 

and is currently in the process of applying for disability income through the Social Security 

Administration. 

7. Defendant states that it “provides patient and customer-sensitive account resolution 

services for aged receivables.”1 From its headquarters at 645 Penn Street, 4th Floor, Reading, 

Pennsylvania, Defendant is in the business of collecting consumer debts for others, including a 

medical debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff. 

8. Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation that is registered with the Indiana Secretary of 

State bearing business identification number 2014013000395.

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. Defendant identifies itself as a debt collector and has been a member of the Association 

of Credit and Collection Professionals since 2014. 2

 

1 http://www.arcadiarecovery.com/third-party-debt/

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

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 2 of 6
3

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

11. On June 25, 2016, Plaintiff required the assistance of ambulance service from 

Tippecanoe Emergency Services (“Tippecanoe”) after suffering a severe panic attack. See

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

12. The ambulance services resulted in a medical debt of $1,276.00 (“subject consumer 

debt”) owed to Tippecanoe. See attached Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a photo taken by 

Plaintiff of a bill from Tippecanoe.

13. Due to her lack of income, Plaintiff was not able to pay Tippecanoe for the subject 

consumer debt. See Exhibit A.

14. Upon information and belief, Tippecanoe turned the collection of the subject consumer 

debt over to Defendant following Plaintiff’s default.

15. During 2016, Defendant began contacting Plaintiff seeking payment of the subject 

consumer debt. Id.

16. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff received a call to her cellular phone from (866) 585-1564, 

which is a number utilized by Defendant. See Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of screenshots 

from Plaintiff’s cellular phone.

17. During the above call, Defendant identified itself as a debt collector. Suffering from 

anxiety, Plaintiff disconnected the call. See Exhibit A.

18. Later the same day, Plaintiff received numerous back to back calls from blocked phone 

numbers. See Exhibit C.

19. Upon answering the blocked calls, Plaintiff discovered that they were coming from 

Defendant. See Exhibit A.

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 3 of 6
4

20. During at least one of the calls, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was represented 

by an attorney. Id.

21. On or about July 28, 2016, Plaintiff received two phone calls from the Defendant within 

the hour. See Exhibit D.

22. Overwhelmed by Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff spoke with CLP regarding her rights.

23. Plaintiff has incurred costs and expenses consulting with CLP as a result of Defendant's 

collection actions.

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

25. Plaintiff has endured harassment resulting in increased mental duress as a result of 

Defendant’s collection actions. 

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

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. The FDCPA states:

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

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

connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the 

general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a 

violation of this section: Causing a telephone to ring or engaging 

any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously 

with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called 

number.” 15 U.S.C §§1692d and d(5).

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

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

29. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692d, d(5), and f during its collection communications 

towards Plaintiff. On July 19, 2016, Defendant called Plaintiff from an unblocked number at 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 4 of 6
5

approximately 12:16 pm seeking payment on the subject consumer debt. Anxious, Plaintiff 

disconnected this call. Not gaining payment on the subject consumer debt, Defendant 

systematically called Plaintiff back several times from a blocked number attempting to collect on 

the subject consumer debt. 

30. By hanging up on Defendant during the first phone call on July 19, 2016, Plaintiff 

indicated her desire not to speak with it. Despite this action by Plaintiff, Defendant caused 

multiple phone calls to be made to her cellular phone, three of which were consecutive. 

Defendant intended by repeatedly causing Plaintiff’s phone to ring, she would acquiesce to its 

harassment and make payment on the subject consumer debt in order to silence the 

communications. As a sophisticated debt collector, Defendant is aware that multiple

communications to consumers often result in payment out of annoyance.

31. Plaintiff suffers from a plethora of debilitating medical conditions, most notably anxiety. 

Defendant’s actions caused emotional distress to Plaintiff and served to worsen her condition. 

Due to Defendant’s systematic contacts, she was compelled to seek out the assistance of CLP.

32. The FDCPA states: 

“Without prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt 

collector or the express permission of a court of competent 

jurisdiction, a debt collector may not 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, unless the attorney fails to respond 

within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt 

collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication 

with consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §§1692c and c(a)(2).

33. Defendant violated 15 U. S.C. §1692(c)(a)(2) by continuing to contact the Plaintiff after 

being informed that she was represented by an attorney. One at least one of the July 19, 2016 

communications, Plaintiff conveyed to Defendant that she had an attorney. Despite receiving 

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 5 of 6
6

this information, Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff. Defendant knows it is required to 

cease direct communication with consumers that is knows to be represented by counsel. With 

the hope of recovering payment on the subject consumer debt, Defendant circumvented the 

involvement of CLP and continued to seek payment directly from Plaintiff. 

34. As plead in paragraphs 23 through 26, Plaintiff has suffered harassment and incurred

damages as a result of 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 bodies of law; 

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: July 31, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

s/ David S. Klain

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)

davidklain@aol.com

USDC IN/ND case 4:16-cv-00060-JVB-PRC document 1 filed 07/31/16 page 6 of 6