IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 

ELIZABETH HUDSPETH, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 

 Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(d).

2. This action arises out of the Defendant’s violation of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter the “FDCPA”). 

 VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this Judicial District.

4. The acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in this Judicial District.

5. The Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District. 

6. The Defendant transacts business in this Judicial District.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Elizabeth Hudspeth is a natural person.

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13
2 

8. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Denver, County of Denver, State of 

Colorado. 

9. The Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

10. The Plaintiff is a “any person” as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. § 1692d 

preface.

11. Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 

operating from an address at 28405 Van Dyke Avenue, Warren, Michigan, 

48093. 

12. The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is Colorado 

Manager, Inc., 80 Garden Center, Suite 3, Broomfield, Colorado, 80020. 

13. The Defendant is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6). 

14. The Defendant is licensed as a collection agency by the state of Colorado.

15. The principal purpose of the Defendant is the collection of debts using the 

mails and telephone.

16. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.

17. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another that arose out of 

transactions in which the money, property or services which are the subject 

of the transactions are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 13
3 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

18. Sometime before 2009 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation 

that was primarily for personal, family and household purposes namely an 

amount due and owing on a personal account owed to JC Penney 

Consumer / GE Money Bank (hereinafter the “Account”). 

19. The Account constitutes a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(5). 

20. The Account went into default with JC Penney Consumer / GE Money 

Bank. 

21. After the Account went into default the Account was placed or otherwise 

transferred to the Defendant for collection. 

22. The Defendant is in the business of purchasing delinquent consumer 

accounts, typically paying no more than ten cents on the dollar. 

23. The Defendant then collects the accounts or hires other entities to collect 

the accounts. 

24. The Defendant claims to have purchased the Account. 

25. On information and belief the Defendant paid less than ten cents on the 

dollar for the Account. 

26. The Account was placed or otherwise transferred to the Defendant for 

collection. 

27. The Plaintiff disputes the Account. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 13
4 

28. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication 

on the Account. 

29. The Defendant’s collector(s) were employee(s) of the Defendant at all 

times mentioned herein. 

30. The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its 

employee(s). 

31. The Defendant placed telephone calls to the Plaintiff while attempting to 

collect the Account in July 2011. 

32. The Defendant placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff while attempting to 

collect the Account on July 26, 2011 at or around 8:48 am Mountain Time. 

33. On July 27, 2011 the Plaintiff called the Defendant to find out why the 

Defendant was calling her. 

34. On July 27, 2011 the Plaintiff had a telephone conversation regarding the 

Account with the Defendant via its employee who identified himself as 

Scott Meyer or some similar name. 

35. On July 27, 2011 the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a telephone 

conversation while the Defendant was attempting to collect the Account 

from the Plaintiff. 

36. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Defendant and the Plaintiff the Defendant represented to the Plaintiff that 

the Defendant had the Plaintiff’s JC Penney account with a balance of 

$1,531.59. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 13
5 

37. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Defendant’s employee and the Plaintiff the Defendant’s employee stated 

to the Plaintiff: Thank you for calling Asset Acceptance Corporation. This 

is Scott Meyer, a debt collector. Call could be monitored or recorded for 

quality assurance. 

38. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Defendant’s employee and the Plaintiff the Defendant’s employee stated 

to the Plaintiff: We are calling in reference to the outstanding balance on a 

JC Penney account. 

39. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Defendant’s employee and the Plaintiff the Defendant’s employee stated 

to the Plaintiff: The balance is $1,531.59. 

40. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Defendant’s employee and the Plaintiff the Defendant’s employee stated 

to the Plaintiff: Its currently reported to the credit bureau as a delinquent 

account. 

41. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff disputed the Account. 

42. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant the Plaintiff stated: The debt is disputed. 

43. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant the Plaintiff stated: I’m disputing this account. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 13
6 

44. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant the Plaintiff stated: Its disputed. 

45. During the telephone call / conversation on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant the Plaintiff stated: Because I’m disputing it. 

46. The Plaintiff disputed the Account with the Defendant in July 2011. 

47. The Defendant was aware that the Account was disputed in July 2011. 

48. Prior to September 2011 the Plaintiff disputed the Account with the 

Defendant. 

49. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that the Account was 

disputed. 

50. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was informed that the Account 

was disputed. 

51. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that in July 2011 the 

Plaintiff disputed the Account. 

52. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant was aware that in July 2011 the 

Plaintiff stated to the Defendant during a telephone call with the Defendant 

regarding the Account: “The debt is disputed” and “Its disputed”. 

53. In September 2011 the Defendant communicated information regarding 

the Account to Transunion, a credit reporting agency. 

54. In September 2011 the Defendant communicated to Transunion that the

balance on the Account was: $1,562. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 13
7 

55. On or before September 2011 the Defendant communicated to 

Transunion that the Original Creditor on the Account was: 01 GEMB JC 

Penney Consumer. 

56. In September 2011 the Defendant failed to communicate to Transunion 

that the Account was disputed. 

57. In September 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to Transunion that 

the Account was disputed. 

58. Prior to September 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to 

Transunion that the Account was disputed. 

59. As of September 23, 2011 the Defendant did not communicate to 

Transunion that the Account was disputed. 

60. The Defendant’s purpose for communicating the information on the 

Account to Transunion was to attempt to collect the Account. 

61. The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in 

September 2011 on the Account conveyed information regarding the 

Account directly or indirectly to Transunion. 

62. The information communicated to Transunion by the Defendant in 

September 2011 on the Account constituted a “communication” as defined 

by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

63. The only reason that the Defendant communicated the information 

regarding the Account in September 2011 to Transunion was to attempt to 

collect the Account. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 13
8 

64. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Experian. 

65. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Experian. 

66. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Experian on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

67. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Equifax. 

68. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Equifax. 

69. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Equifax on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

70. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect to Transunion. 

71. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant regularly reported 

information on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from individuals 

residing in the state of Colorado to Transunion. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 13
9 

72. Upon information and belief in 2011 the Defendant reported information to 

Transunion on account(s) that it was attempting to collect from over 100 

individuals residing in the state of Colorado. 

73. In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Defendant and / or 

representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant 

attempting to collect the Account had telephone conversation(s) with the 

Plaintiff regarding the Account. 

74. The telephone call(s) / conversation(s) between the Plaintiff and the 

Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the 

Defendant in the year prior to the filing of the instant action each 

individually conveyed information regarding the Account directly or 

indirectly to the Plaintiff. 

75. The telephone call(s) / conversation(s) between the Plaintiff and the 

Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the 

Defendant in the year prior to the filing of the instant action each 

individually constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA § 

1692a(2). 

76. The telephone call(s) / conversation(s) on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant and / or employee(s) of the Defendant each 

conveyed information regarding the Account directly or indirectly to the 

Plaintiff. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 13
10 

77. The telephone call(s) / conversation(s) on July 27, 2011 between the 

Plaintiff and the Defendant and / or employee(s) of the Defendant each 

constituted a “communication” as defined by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

78. On information and belief the Defendant made a audio recording 

and/or audio recording(s) of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) 

with the Plaintiff on July 27, 2011. 

79. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy and/or copies 

of the audio recording(s) of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) 

with the Plaintiff on July 27, 2011. 

80. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of 

some of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in 

the year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

81. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of 

some of the audio recording(s) of its telephone call(s) / 

conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the 

instant action. 

82. On information and belief the Defendant made audio recording(s) of 

all of its telephone call(s) / conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the 

year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

83. On information and belief the Defendant has a copy and/or copies 

of the audio recording(s) of all of its telephone call(s) / 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 13
11 

conversation(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior to the filing of the 

instant action. 

84. On information and belief the Defendant’s copies of the audio 

recording(s) of its telephone call(s) with the Plaintiff in the year prior 

to the filing of the instant action substantiate the Plaintiff’s 

allegations in this action. 

85. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it provided to Transunion on the Account. 

86. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it provided to Transunion on the Account in September 2011. 

87. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s)

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it provided to Transunion on the Account prior to September

2011. 

88. On information and belief the Defendant has electronic record(s) 

and/or computer record(s) and/or paper copy(s) of the information 

that it provided to Transunion on the Account after September 2011. 

89. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute false and misleading 

representation(s) and mean(s) and violate FDCPA 1692e preface, e(2)(A), 

e(8) and e(10). 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 13
12 

90. The Defendant’s action(s) constitute unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect a debt and violate FDCPA 1692f preface. 

91. The FDCPA is a “strict liability statute,” and Plaintiff need only “show one 

violation of its provisions to be entitled to judgment in her favor.” Ellis v. 

Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F.Supp. 2d 215, 219 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). 

92. As a consequence of the Defendant’s action(s), the Plaintiff seeks

damages pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k. 

COUNT I, FDCPA VIOLATION 

93. The previous paragraphs are incorporated into this Count as if set forth in 

 full. 

94. The act(s) and omission(s) of the Defendant constitute a violation of the 

FDCPA § 1692e preface, e(2)(A), e(8), e(10) and § 1692f preface. 

95. Pursuant to FDCPA § 1692k the Plaintiff seeks damages, 

 reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 13
13 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

The Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury. U.S. Const. 

amend. 7., Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 38. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court grants the following: 

1. A finding that the Defendant violated the FDCPA and/or an admission from 

the Defendant that it violated the FDCPA. 

2. Damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a). 

3. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). 

4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_s/ David M. Larson ________ 

David M. Larson, Esq. 

405 S. Cascade Avenue, Suite 305 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

 (719) 473-0006 

 Attorney for the Plaintiff 

Case 1:11-cv-02508-MSK-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/23/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 13