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 

David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN: 026059) 

david@southwestlitigation.com 

Hyde & Swigart 

2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

(602) 265-3332 

(602) 230-4482 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Teresa McGlothlin 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

INTRODUCTION

1. The United States Congress has found abundant evidence of the use of 

abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt 

collectors, and has determined that abusive debt collection practices 

contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the 

loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. Congress wrote the Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 1 of 11 -

Teresa McGlothlin 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Reasonable Solutions, LLC d/b/a 

RS Processing; Harriet Jackson,

 Defendants.

Case No: ________________ 

Complaint For Damages 

Jury Trial Demanded 

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 11
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 

“FDCPA”), to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, 

to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt 

collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote 

consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses. 

2. Teresa McGlothlin, (Plaintiff), through Plaintiff's attorneys, brings this action 

to challenge the actions of Reasonable Solutions, LLC d/b/a RS Processing 

(hereinafter referred to as “Reasonable Solutions”); Harriet Jackson 

(“Jackson”) (and collectively referred to as “Defendants”), with regard to 

attempts by Defendants to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly 

owed by Plaintiff, and this conduct caused Plaintiff damages. 

3. Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the exception 

of those allegations that pertain to a plaintiff, or to a plaintiff's counsel, which 

Plaintiff alleges on personal knowledge. 

4. While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint 

alleges violations of the statutes cited in their entirety. 

5. Unless otherwise stated, all the conduct engaged in by Defendants took place 

while Defendants were located in Arizona. 

6. Any violations by Defendants were knowing, willful, and intentional, and 

Defendants did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such 

violation. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because this case arises out of violation of federal law 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k); 

47 U.S.C. §227(b); Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012); 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for supplemental state claims. 

8. This action arises out of Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection 

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 2 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 11
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 

9. Because Defendants do business within the State of Arizona, County of 

Maricopa, personal jurisdiction is established. 

10. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

11. At all times relevant, Defendants conducted business within the State of 

Arizona. 

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of Phoenix, State of 

Arizona. 

13. Defendants are located in the City of Rock Hill, in the State of South 

Carolina. 

14. Plaintiff is obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a debt, and is a “consumer” 

as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

15. Plaintiff is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 

U.S.C. § 153 (39). 

16. Defendants are persons who use an instrumentality of interstate commerce or 

the mails in a business the principal purpose of which is the collection of 

debts, or who regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, 

debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and are therefore 

debt collectors as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each individual 

Defendant was acting as an agent of the other named Defendants in this 

action; Therefore, each Defendant can be held responsible and is vicariously 

liable for the conduct of the other named Defendants and vice versa. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Alleged Debt 

18. Sometime before September 25, 2015, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred 

certain financial obligations. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 3 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 11
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 

19. These financial obligations were primarily for personal, family or household 

purposes and are therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 

§1692a(5). 

20. Sometime thereafter, but before September 25, 2015, Plaintiff allegedly fell 

behind in the payments allegedly owed and defaulted on the alleged debt. 

Plaintiff currently disputes the validity of this alleged debt. 

21. Subsequent to the default, but before September 25, 2015, the alleged debt 

was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred, to Defendants for collection. 

Automated Calls 

22. Defendants have attempted to contact Plaintiff on multiple occasions upon her 

cell phone since approximately September 2015 using a pre-recorded voice. 

23. Plaintiff has never given her cell phone number to the alleged original creditor 

or to any of the Defendants, which means they are contacting Plaintiff upon 

her cell phone without prior express consent.

24. To further illustrate Defendants’ lack of consent, Plaintiff did not have her 

current phone number at the time the debt was allegedly defaulted on. 

25. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants 

contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, via an “automatic telephone 

dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1).

26. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the telephone 

number Defendants called was assigned to a cellular telephone service for 

which Plaintiff incurs a charge for all incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).

27. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendants’ 

collection calls constituted a call that was not for emergency purposes as 

defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 4 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 11
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 

28. Plaintiff is informed, and believe, and thereon allege that Plaintiff did not 

provide express consent to receive calls on their cellular telephone, pursuant 

to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A). 

29. Defendants’ collection calls were in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Collection Abuse 

30. During their collection attempts Defendants would leave voicemails stating 

there was an “[A]ctive order pending processing through Maricopa County. It 

is directly tied to your social security number and your state issued I.D. At 

this time you do have the right to contact the Plaintiff prior to your order 

being served through your county...”

31. Through these threats, Defendants have threatened to sue Plaintiff despite the 

fact that statute of limitations on their ability to sue Plaintiff has already 

expired, and Plaintiff is informed and believes this is conduct that they cannot 

legally take. 

32. Through this conduct, Defendant engaged in conduct the natural consequence 

of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection with the 

collection of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 

33. Through this conduct, Defendant used a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. 

Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(10). 

34. Through this conduct, Defendant made a false representation concerning the 

character, amount, or legal status of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). 

35. Through this conduct, Defendant represented or implied that nonpayment of 

any debt would result in the arrest or imprisonment of a person or the seizure, 

garnishment, attachment, or sale of property or wages of a person when such 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 5 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 11
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 

action was not lawful Defendant did not intended to take such action. 

Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4). 

36. Through this conduct, Defendant threatened to take action that cannot legally 

be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Consequently, Defendant violated 

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). 

37. Through this conduct, Defendant used an unfair or unconscionable means to 

collect or attempt to collect any debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 

U.S.C. § 1692f. 

Lack of Required Notices 

38. In every conversation with Defendants’ agent, Defendants failed to properly 

identify their company nor provide any notices to Plaintiff. 

39. Through this conduct, Defendants placed a telephone call without meaningful 

disclosing of the caller’s true identity. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 

U.S.C. § 1692d(6). 

40. Defendants failed to disclose in the initial communication with the consumer 

that Defendants were attempting to collect a debt and that any information 

obtained would be used for that purpose, or failed to disclose in subsequent 

communications that the communication from a debt collector. Consequently, 

Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). 

41. Defendants failed within five days after its initial communication with 

Plaintiff, to provide written notification containing a statement that unless 

Plaintiff, within thirty days after receipt of that notice, disputed the validity of 

the debt, or any portion thereof, Defendants would assume the debt was valid, 

or failed within five days after its initial communication with Plaintiff to 

provide a written notice containing a statement that if Plaintiff notified 

Defendants in writing, within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any 

portion thereof, was disputed, Defendants would obtain verification of the 

debt or a copy of a judgment against Plaintiff and a copy of such verification 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 6 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 11
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 

or judgment would be mailed to Plaintiff by Defendants and that Defendants 

would provide Plaintiff with the name and address of the original creditor. 

This omission by Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. 

Unlicensed Debt Collector 

42. Defendants are engaged in the business of attempting to collect debts in the 

State of Arizona. The debts that are pursued by Defendants are debts that have 

been allegedly acquired by Defendants after the debts are in default. 

43. Defendants do not hold a current or even an expired license to act as a debt 

collection agency in the State of Arizona as required by A.R.S. 32-1021. 

44. Defendants have and continue to act as a debt collection agency in Arizona. 

45. Defendants willfully and knowingly acted as a debt collection agency in 

Arizona without a license. The Defendants and all persons are presumed to 

know the law. 

46. Through this conduct, Defendants used a false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. 

Consequently, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and 15 U.S.C. § 

1692e(10). 

47. Through this conduct, Defendants threatened to take action that cannot legally 

be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Consequently, Defendants

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). 

48. Through this conduct, Defendants were collecting an amount (including any 

interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) when 

such amount was not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt 

or permitted by law. Consequently, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f(1). 

49. Through this conduct, Defendants engaged in conduct the natural 

consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 7 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 11
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 

with the collection of a debt. Consequently, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 

1692d. 

Damages

50. As a result of Defendants’ abusive conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages 

in the form of mental anguish and emotional distress type damages, which 

manifested in symptoms including but not limited to: stress, anxiety, worry, 

restlessness, irritability, embarrassment, loss of sleep, shame, feelings of 

hopelessness, and helplessness all impacting her job and personal 

relationships. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I 

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) 

15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 ET SEQ. 

51. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs. 

52. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations 

of the FDCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the abovecited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

53. As a result of each and every violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to 

any actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in 

an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) from 

each and every defendant, jointly and severally. 

COUNT II 

NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) 

47 U.S.C. 227 

54. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference, all other paragraphs. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 8 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 11
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 

55. The foregoing acts and omissions constitute numerous and multiple violations 

of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the abovecited provisions of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. 227 et. seq. 

56. As a result of Defendants' negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq, 

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each 

and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

COUNT III 

KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL OF THE

TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) 

47 U.S.C. 227 

57. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference, all other paragraphs. 

58. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and 

multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not 

limited to each and every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 

227 et seq. 

59. As a result of Defendants' knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 

227 et seq., Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages, as provided by statute, up 

to $1,500.00, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)

(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). 

COUNT IV 

NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION

60. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs. 

61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereupon alleges that Defendant 

Jackson is the owner of Defendant Reasonable Solutions. 

62. Defendant Jackson was negligent in the training, and/or supervision of its 

employees. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 9 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 11
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 

63. The actions and omissions of Defendants constitute negligence in that 

Defendant Jackson owed Plaintiff a duty to train, and/or supervise its 

employees properly, said duty was breached, and said breach was the 

proximate cause of damages suffered by Plaintiff. 

64. The actions and omissions of Defendants as described herein constitute 

grossly negligent, training, and/or supervision in that Defendant Jackson

owed Plaintiffs a duty to train, and/or supervise its employees properly, said 

duty was breached, said breach was the proximate cause of damages suffered 

by Plaintiff, and the actions and omissions of Defendants demonstrate a want 

of scant care and an indifference to the rights of Plaintiff. The actions of 

Defendants were willful, malicious, and wanton. The actions of Defendants 

were highly unreasonable and demonstrate an extreme departure from 

ordinary care. 

COUNT V 

FRAUD

65. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference, all other 

paragraphs. 

66. Defendants’ made several false threats to Plaintiff including threatening to 

have an order served on Plaintiff.

67. Defendants knew that the representation was false when they made it. 

68. Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on the representation and pay 

Defendants for the alleged debt. 

69. Plaintiffs were harmed by this fraud as it created an extreme amount of stress 

and anxiety for Plaintiff. 

70. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants’ representation was a substantial factor in 

causing Plaintiff harm. 

71. As said conduct was carried out by Defendants in an oppressive, malicious, 

despicable, gross and wonton manner, said conduct demonstrates Defendants’ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 10 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 11
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 

intention to defraud. As such Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages 

from Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant, and 

Plaintiff be awarded damages from Defendant, as follows: 

• An award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); 

• An award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(A); 

• An award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3);

• An award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every negligent 

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

• An award of $1,500.00, for each and every willful violation, pursuant to 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C);

• Special, general, compensatory and punitive damages. 

72. Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 

America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Hyde & Swigart 

Date: December 4, 2015 By: /s/ David J. McGlothlin 

 David J. McGlothlin 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 - 11 of 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02469-SRB Document 1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 11