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) 

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192 

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644 

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 

E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com 

Of Counsel to 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

A Connecticut Law Firm 

1100 Summer Street 

Stamford, CT 06905 

Telephone: (203) 653-2250 

Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Ray Baxter 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ray Baxter, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail 

Bank, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 1 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 5
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, Ray Baxter (hereafter “Plaintiff”), by undersigned counsel, brings the 

following complaint against Synchrony Bank f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank (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 Mesa, Arizona, and is a “person” as 

the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

5. Synchrony is a business entity located in Draper, Utah, 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 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 1 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 5
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: 602-xxx-2709 (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”). 

10. When Plaintiff answered calls from Defendant, he was met with a clicking 

noise followed by a period of silence. 

11. During a live conversation in or around August of 2014, Plaintiff explained to 

Defendant that it was calling the wrong telephone number and requested the calls to 

cease. 

12. Despite the foregoing, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT – 47 

U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this complaint 

as though fully stated herein. 

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

an ATDS when calling Plaintiff’s Number absent Plaintiff’s prior express consent to 

do so. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). 

Case 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 1 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 5
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 telephone system has the earmark of using an ATDS in that 

Plaintiff, upon answering calls from Defendant, was met with a clicking noise 

followed by a period of silence. 

16. 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 requested that Defendant cease all 

further calls. 

17. 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. 

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

19. The TCPA creates a private right of action against persons who violate the Act. 

See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

20. As a result of each call made in violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an 

award of $500.00 in statutory damages. 

21. 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); 

Case 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 1 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

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 

 

DATED: August 25, 2015 LEMBERG LAW, LLC 

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Lemberg Law, LLC 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Ray Baxter 

Case 2:15-cv-01680-GMS Document 1 Filed 08/25/15 Page 5 of 5