UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Jonathan Bennett 

6691 Country Ln. 

Belleville, MI 48111 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

Check Resolution Service, Inc. 

1561 Kenmore Ave. 

Kenmore, NY 14217 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 

 

Judge: 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

UNDER THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION 

PRACTICES ACT, INVASION OF 

PRIVACY, AND OTHER EQUITABLE 

RELIEF

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREIN 

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §1331 pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §1692 and under the doctrine of Supplemental Jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to 

this claim occurred in this judicial district. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

2. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3). 

3. Plaintiff incurred a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(5). 

4. At the time of the communications referenced herein, Defendant either owned the debt or 

was retained by the owner to collect the debt. 

5. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

6. Plaintiff filed this claim within the timeframe permitted under the FDCPA. 

1

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 6
7. During the months of October 2008 and November 2008, Defendant telephoned both 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone and Plaintiff’s mother’s residence on numerous occasions in an 

effort to collect the debt. 

8. During several of these communications, Defendant disclosed to Plaintiff’s mother that 

Plaintiff owed the debt. 

9. During several of these communications, Defendant misrepresented itself as a process server. 

10. During at least one of these communications, Defendant threatened to serve Plaintiff at 

Plaintiff’s place of employment. 

11. During several of these communications, Defendant misrepresented that it was in the process 

of filing a lawsuit against Plaintiff. 

12. During at least one of these communications, Defendant misrepresented that Plaintiff had 

been charged with defrauding a federal institution. 

13. At the time of the communications referenced above, Defendant had neither the intent nor the 

ability to carry out its threatened actions. 

14. Defendant damaged Plaintiff emotionally and mentally and caused Plaintiff substantial 

anxiety and stress. 

15. Defendant violated the FDCPA. 

COUNT ONE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

16. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

17. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c by calling Plaintiff at a time and/or place known to be 

inconvenient for Plaintiff. 

2

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 12/12/08 Page 2 of 6
COUNT TWO

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

18. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

19. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c in that it communicated with a third party and 

disclosed that Plaintiff owed the debt. 

COUNT THREE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

20. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

21. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692c in that it communicated with a third party more than 

once and is without justification for multiple contacts. 

COUNT FOUR

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

22. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

23. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d in that Defendant repeatedly or continuously 

telephoned Plaintiff and/or another person with the intent to annoy, abuse, and/or harass that 

person. 

COUNT FIVE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

24. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

25. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692d in that Defendant failed to meaningfully disclose its 

identity during telephone communications with Plaintiff. 

3

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 12/12/08 Page 3 of 6
COUNT SIX

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

26. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

27. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e in that Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff during 

verbal communications that Defendant was a debt collector. 

COUNT SEVEN

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

28. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

29. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e in that it falsely represented the character, amount, 

and/or legal status of the debt. 

COUNT EIGHT

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

30. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

31. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e in that it threatened action that could not legally be 

taken and/or that was not intended to be taken. 

COUNT NINE

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

32. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

33. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692e by making misrepresentations during its 

communications with Plaintiff. 

COUNT TEN

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

34. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

4

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 12/12/08 Page 4 of 6
35. The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1692f in that its actions were unfair and/or 

unconscionable means to collect the debt. 

COUNT ELEVEN

Invasion of Privacy by Public Disclosure of a Private Fact 

36. Plaintiff incorporates each of the preceding allegations as if specifically stated herein. 

37. Defendant released information which was private to Plaintiff and concerned Plaintiff’s 

private life to Plaintiff’s mother. 

38. Defendant’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s debt to this person is highly offensive. 

39. The information disclosed is not of legitimate concern to the public. 

JURY DEMAND

40. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

41. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 

a. Judgment against Defendant for actual damages, statutory damages, and costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k. 

b. Judgment, in an amount to be determined at trial, against Defendant for the 

Invasion of Privacy by Public Disclosure of a Private Fact. 

c. For such other legal and/or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

5

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 12/12/08 Page 5 of 6
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

 Legal Helpers, P.C. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

 By: s/Timothy J. Sostrin

Timothy J. Sostrin 

233 S. Wacker, Suite 5150 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: 312-753-7576 

Fax: 312-822-1064 

Email: tjs@legalhelpers.com

 s/ with consent of Lori A. Leigh 

Lori A. Leigh 

17117 W. Nine Mile, Suite 1020 

Southfield, MI 48075 

Telephone: 866-339-1156 

Fax: 248-569-3874 

Email: lal@legalhelpers.com

Bar # P65423 (Local Counsel) 

6

Case 2:08-cv-15139-NGE-SDP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 12/12/08 Page 6 of 6