1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180) 

3219 East Camelback Road, #588 

Phoenix, AZ 85018 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

43 Danbury Road 

Wilton, CT 06897 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Luis Ochoa 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Luis Ochoa, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Ally Financial, Inc., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 6
2 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Plaintiff, Luis Ochoa (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, brings the 

following complaint against Ally Financial, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”) and alleges 

as follows: 

JURISDICTION

1. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). 

2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), where 

the acts and transactions giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district and/or 

where Defendant transacts business in this district. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in San Luis, Arizona, and is a 

“person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. Defendant is a business entity located in Detroit, Michigan, and is a 

“person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 

6. At all times mentioned herein where Defendant communicated with any 

person via telephone, such communication was done via Defendant’s agent, 

representative or employee. 

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 2 of 6
3 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff utilized a cellular telephone 

service and was assigned the following telephone number: 928-XXX-5969 (hereafter 

“Number”). 

8. Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff’s Number in an attempt to collect a 

debt from someone other than Plaintiff. 

9. The aforementioned calls were placed using an automatic telephone 

dialing system (“ATDS”) and/or by using an artificial or prerecorded voice 

(“Robocalls”). 

10. Upon answering Defendant’s calls, Plaintiff heard a significant delay 

before Defendant’s automated system attempted to connect Plaintiff with a live 

representative. 

11. Upon speaking with Defendant’s agent, Plaintiff learned that Defendant 

was calling to speak with a person named Luis M. Ochoa who owns a 2015 Chevy 

Tahoe. 

12. Plaintiff’s full name is Luis Armando Ochoa and he owns a 2017 Jeep. 

13. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was calling 

the wrong person. 

14. Nevertheless, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff’s Number using an 

ATDS at an excessive and harassing rate. 

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 6
4 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15. Defendant’s calls directly and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s 

right to peacefully enjoy a service that Plaintiff paid for and caused Plaintiff to suffer 

a significant amount of anxiety, frustration and annoyance. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this 

complaint as though fully stated herein. 

17. The TCPA prohibits Defendant from using, other than for emergency 

purposes, an ATDS and/or Robocalls when calling Plaintiff’s Number absent 

Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

18. Defendant’s telephone system has the earmark of using an ATDS in that 

Plaintiff, upon answering calls from Defendant, heard a significant period of silence 

prior to being connected with a live representative. 

19. Defendant called Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS without Plaintiff’s 

consent in that Defendant either never had Plaintiff’s prior express consent to do so or 

such consent was effectively revoked when Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was 

calling the wrong number. 

20. Defendant continued to willfully call Plaintiff’s Number using an ATDS 

knowing that it lacked the requisite consent to do so in violation of the TCPA. 

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 4 of 6
5 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21. Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s 

actions. 

22. The TCPA creates a private right of action against persons who violate 

the Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

23. As a result of each call made in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is 

entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages. 

24. As a result of each call made knowingly and/or willingly in violation of 

the TCPA, Plaintiff may be entitled to an award of treble damages. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for: 

A. Statutory damages of $500.00 for each call determined to be in violation 

of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); 

B. Treble damages for each violation determined to be willful and/or 

knowing under the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 227(b)(3); and 

C. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper. 

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON ALL COUNTS 

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 5 of 6
6 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DATED: November 14, 2017 TRINETTE G. KENT 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent, Esq.

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Luis Ochoa 

Case 2:17-cv-04182-JJT Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 6 of 6