IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 

SCOTT SHUMAN, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

DELTA OUTSOURCE GROUP, INC., a Missouri corporation, 

 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 Scott Shuman is a natural person.

8. The Plaintiff resides in the City of Aurora, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
2 

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 Delta Outsource Group, Inc., is a Missouri corporation operating from an 

address at 1000 Lake Saint Louis Blvd, Suite 20, Lake Saint Louis, Missouri 63367. 

12. The Defendant’s registered agent in the state of Colorado is Incorp Services, Inc., 

36 South 18th Avenue, Suite D, Brighton, Colorado 80601. 

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 attempts to collect debts alleged to be 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.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

18. Sometime before 2010 the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation that 

was primarily for personal, family or household purposes namely an amount due 

and owing on personal account owed to US 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 US Bank. 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
3 

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

transferred to the Defendant for collection. 

22. The Plaintiff disputes the Account. 

23. The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant cease all further communication on the 

Account. 

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

mentioned herein. 

25. The Defendant acted at all times mentioned herein through its employee(s). 

26. 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 placed

telephone call(s) to the Plaintiff. 

27. In the year prior to the filing of the instant action the Plaintiff called the Defendant 

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

response to the telephone call(s). 

28. The Defendant’s purpose for these telephone call(s) was to attempt to collect the 

Account. 

29. The telephone call(s) each individually conveyed information regarding the 

Account directly or indirectly to the Plaintiff. 

30. The telephone call(s) each individually constituted a “communication” as defined 

by FDCPA § 1692a(2). 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
4 

31. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / 

or agent(s) of the Defendant placed telephone call(s) to the Plaintiff was to 

attempt to collect the Account. 

32. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / 

or agent(s) of the Defendant had telephone conversation(s) with the Plaintiff was 

to attempt to collect the Account. 

33. The only reason that the Defendant and / or representative(s), employee(s) and / 

or agent(s) of the Defendant received telephone call(s) from the Plaintiff was to 

attempt to collect the Account. 

34. During the communication(s) the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant attempting to collect the Account 

represented to the Plaintiff that he could not dispute the Account. 

35. The Defendant’s representation stated in paragraph 34 was false and was a false 

representation in connection with the collection of a debt, the Account. 

36. During the communication(s) the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant attempting to collect the Account 

represented to the Plaintiff that they were processing a breach of contract claim 

in Colorado against him. 

37. The Defendant’s representation stated in paragraph 36 was false and was false 

representation in connection with the collection of a debt, the Account. 

38. During the communication(s) the Defendant and / or representative(s), 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) of the Defendant attempting to collect the Account 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
5 

represented to the Plaintiff that the Account will stay on his credit reports until it is 

paid in full. 

39. The Defendant’s representation stated in paragraph 38 was false and was false 

representation in connection with the collection of a debt, the Account. 

40. Upon information and belief the Defendant kept written documentation and / or 

computer record(s) that document telephone call(s) to the Plaintiff on the Account 

in the year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

41. Upon information and belief the Defendant kept written documentation and / or 

computer record(s) that document telephone call(s) from the Plaintiff to the 

Defendant on the Account in the year prior to the filing of the instant action. 

42. Upon 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. 

43. Upon 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. 

44. Upon information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of the 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. 

45. Upon information and belief the Defendant has a copy or copies of the 

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. 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
6 

46. Upon information and belief in the time between when it received this Complaint 

and Jury Demand and when a Answer to this Complaint and Jury Demand was 

filed on its behalf with the Court the Defendant made an inquiry and/or 

investigation as to whether it had any audio recording(s) of any telephone 

conversation(s) between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. 

47. Upon information and belief the Defendant sent copy(s) of any audio recording(s) 

that it had of telephone conversation(s) between the Defendant and the Plaintiff 

to the attorney and/or the law firm who employs the attorney who is filing the 

Answer to this Complaint and Jury Demand on behalf of the Defendant. 

48. Upon information and belief the Defendant’s copies 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 substantiate the Plaintiff’s allegations in this action. 

49. The Defendant and its representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s)

statement(s) and action(s) constitute false or misleading representation(s) or 

mean(s) and violate FDCPA 1692e preface, e(2)(A), e(8) and e(10). 

50. The Defendant and its representative(s), employee(s) and / or agent(s) 

statement(s) and action(s) constitute unfair or unconscionable means to collect 

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

51. 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). 

52. As a consequence of the Defendant’s collection activities and 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
7 

 communication(s), the Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to FDCPA 

1692k(a). 

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 

53. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were employee(s) of 

the Defendant at all times mentioned herein. 

54. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were agent(s) of the 

Defendant at all times mentioned herein. 

55. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were acting within the 

course of their employment at all times mentioned herein. 

56. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were acting within the 

scope of their employment at all times mentioned herein. 

57. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were under the direct 

supervision of the Defendant at all times mentioned herein. 

58. The representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant were under the direct 

control of the Defendant at all times mentioned herein. 

59. The actions of the representative(s) and / or collector(s) at the Defendant are 

imputed to their employer, the Defendant. 

60. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions, the Plaintiff seeks 

damages pursuant to FDCPA 1692k(a). 

COUNT I, FDCPA VIOLATION 

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

62. The act(s) and omission(s) of the Defendant and its representative(s), 

Case 1:11-cv-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
8 

employee(s) and / or agent(s) violated the FDCPA, § 1692e preface, e(2)(A), 

e(8), e(10) and § 1692f preface. 

63. Pursuant to FDCPA section 1692k the Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable 

 attorney's fees and costs. 

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-02662-WJM-KLM Document 1 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8