1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ADRIAN RAMOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-1842

v. )

)

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, )

INC.; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; and )

ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Adrian Ramos, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business 

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 (“ICFA”), and for invasion of privacy, and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1692k(d) of the FDCPA, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1337 for Plaintiff’s state law claims.

2. Venue is proper in this District because parts of the acts and transactions occurred

here and Defendants transact substantial business here.

STANDING

3. Venue is proper in this District because parts of the acts and transactions occurred

here and Defendants transact substantial business here.

4. Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to Defendants’ conduct and 

that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter.

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2

5. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury and harm to his reputation as a 

result of Defendant sharing of false information regarding alleged debts with a third party as well 

as by being forced to pay to defend against three identical lawsuits. Evans v. Portfolio Recovery 

Assocs., LLC, 889 F.3d 337, 346 (7th Cir. 2018).

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Adrian Ramos (“Plaintiff”), is a resident of the State of Illinois, from 

whom Defendant attempted to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed for a defaulted 

Synchrony Bank consumer credit account. Plaintiff is thus a “consumer” as that term is defined 

in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) of the FDCPA.

7. Defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“MCM”), is a Kansas corporation 

that does or transacts business in the State of Illinois. Its registered agent is Illinois Corporation 

Service C, located at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703. 

8. MCM is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and 

telephone to collect defaulted consumer debts originally owed to others.

9. MCM maintains a website, www.midlandcredit.com. 

10. MCM’s website provides in part as follows:

Who Is MCM

Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a company that helps consumers 

resolve past-due financial obligations. We empower our customers through 

education and payment plans, and help them return to a path toward 

improved financial health.

https://www.midlandcredit.com/who-is-mcm/, Accessed on February 14, 2020. 

11. MCM is licensed as a collection agency in the State of Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3

12. MCM regularly collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts on behalf 

of others, and is a “debt collector” as that term is defined in § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA.

13. Defendant Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”) is a Delaware limited liability 

company that does or transacts business in the State of Illinois. Its registered agent is Midland 

Credit Management, Inc., located at 1821 Walden Office Sq., Ste. 400, Schaumburg, Illinois 

60173. 

14. Midland is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and 

telephone to collect defaulted consumer debts originally owed to others.

15. MCM services accounts purchased by Midland. 

16. Midland holds a collection agency license from the State of Illinois. 

17. Midland’s principal purpose is the collection of defaulted consumer debts via 

interstate commerce and the mails, as it derives all of its revenue from purchasing and 

recovering portfolios of defaulted receivables from consumers. See SEC filings, Encore Capital 

Group, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2016), available at 

http://investors.encorecapital.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115920&p=irol-reportsannual (viewed 

November 15, 2017).

18. MCM’s website provides in part as follows:

Midland Funding LLC is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of unpaid debt. Midland 

Funding LLC purchases accounts with an unpaid balance where consumers have 

gone at least 180 days without making a payment, or paid less than the minimum 

monthly payment.

https://www.midlandcredit.com/who-is-mcm/midland-funding-llc/, Accessed on 

February 14, 2020. 

19. Midland is thus a “debt collector” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) of the 

FDCPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4

20. Defendant, Encore Capital Group, Inc. (“Encore”) is a Delaware Corporation. It 

does not maintain a registered agent in Illinois. Its registered agent and office is Corporation 

Service Company, located at 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808. 

21. Encores’ SEC filing for 2017 states in part:

We purchase portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables at deep discounts to face 

value and manage them by working with individuals as they repay their obligations 

and work toward financial recovery. Defaulted receivables are consumers’ unpaid 

financial commitments to credit originators, including banks, credit unions, 

consumer finance companies, commercial retailers, and telecommunication 

companies. Defaulted receivables may also include receivables subject to 

bankruptcy proceedings.

22. Encore’s principal purpose is the collection of defaulted consumer debts via

interstate commerce and the mails, as it derives a majority of its revenue from the collection of 

defaulted consumer receivables, and it is thus a “debt collector” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(6) of the FDCPA.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

23. According to Defendants, Plaintiff incurred an alleged debt for goods and services 

used for personal family or household purposes, originally for a Synchrony Bank consumer 

credit account used for personal purposes (“alleged debt”). The alleged debt is thus a “debt” as 

that term is defined at § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA.

24. Due to his financial circumstances, Plaintiff was unable to pay the alleged debt 

and it subsequently went into default.

25. Defendants subsequently began collection activity on the alleged debt.

26. On or about February 19, 2019, Defendants filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff, in the 

State of Illinois, styled Midland Funding LLC v. Adrian Ramos, Case No. 19-M1-105420. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5

27. On or about April 18, 2019, Defendants filed a second lawsuit against Plaintiff, in 

the State of Illinois, styled Midland Funding LLC v. Adrian Ramos, Case No. 19-M1-112526. 

28. On or about April 18, 2019, the same day of the filing of Case No. 19-M1-

112526, Defendants filed a third lawsuit against Plaintiff, in the State of Illinois, styled Midland 

Funding LLC v. Adrian Ramos, Case No. 19-M1-112489. 

29. All three lawsuits are for the same alleged Synchrony debt/account.

30. All three lawsuits seek $4,814.25 in damages.

31. All three lawsuits seek interest and court costs.

32. Each lawsuit seeks a filing cost, a service cost and other costs adding up to 

hundreds of dollars each.

33. Through the act of filing multiple lawsuits on a single debt, Midland has sought to 

collect more than $1,000 in excess costs to which it is not entitled.

34. Through the act of filing multiple lawsuits on a single debt, Midland has made it 

such that Plaintiff would have to pay hundreds of dollars to the Circuit Court of Cook County to 

file his appearance and defend the cases. Such costs include, for example, a mandatory 

appearance fee of $151.00 per case.

35. Through the act of filing multiple lawsuits on a single debt, Midland has forced 

Plaintiff to incur legal fees three times in excess of what he would have incurred had they filed 

just one lawsuit.

36. Plaintiff sought out legal assistance after being notified of the first lawsuit, 19-

M1-105420. However, Defendants sought and were granted a default judgment in the second 

lawsuit, 2019-M1-112526. Plaintiff only defaulted on the second lawsuit because of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6

confusion Defendants caused by the unfair and deceptive practice of filing identical lawsuits. 

Thus, Plaintiff incurred additional costs and emotional distress based on Defendants’ conduct.

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

37. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e of the FDCPA provides as follows:

False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

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

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

. . . (2) The false representation of—

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. . . 

... (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect 

or attempt to collect any debt...

38. Defendants violated 115 U.S.C. § 1692e, 1692e(2)(a) and 1692e(10) when they 

filed simultaneous and multiple lawsuits on a single alleged debt.

39. Simultaneous filing of multiple lawsuits on a single debt is an unfair practice.

40. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f of the FDCPA provides as follows:

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect 

or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application 

of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

41. Defendants sought unauthorized collection costs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f, when they filed multiple lawsuits against Plaintiff on the same alleged debt.

42. Defendants engaged in an unfair practice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, when 

they filed multiple lawsuits against Plaintiff on the same alleged debt.

43. Defendants’ collection communications are to be interpreted under the 

“unsophisticated consumer” standard. See, e.g., Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership, 27 

F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7

THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

44. The ICFA proscribes any unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not 

limited to the use of any deception, fraud, misrepresentation, with the intent the consumer rely 

on such misrepresentations, in the course of commerce or trade. 815 ILCS 505/2.

45. The ICFA allows any consumer who suffers actual damages from a violation of 

the act to bring a private action to recover actual damages or any other relief the court deems 

proper as well as attorney’s fees and costs. 815 ILCS 505/10a(a); 505/10a(c).

46. Defendants’ attempt to collect the debt occurred in the course of commerce or 

trade. 

47. Defendants violated the ICFA by filing multiple lawsuits on the same alleged 

debt. 

48. Plaintiff suffered actual economic damages in the form of attorney’s fees and 

costs incurred to defend himself against the superfluous lawsuits. He also suffered emotional 

damages in the form of the stress, anxiety, and grief arising from the threat posed the multiple 

lawsuits. 

49. Plaintiff’s legal fees also included work necessary to vacate a default judgment 

Defendants secured in the 19-M1-105420 case. The default was the direct result of the filing of 

multiple identical lawsuits. 

50. Defendants’ filing of three lawsuits was a deceptive practice, in violation of the 

ICFA, because it would make a consumer believe they have to pay a debt three times to clear 

their name.

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8

51. Defendants’ filing of three lawsuits was also an unfair practice, in violation of the 

ICFA, because it would force consumers to settle non-existent claims; it makes it appear to the 

public that a consumer is more indebted then they are; and/or is generally coercive. 

52. Defendants’ filing of three lawsuits on the same alleged debt offends public 

policy because it is unfair and deceptive, but also because it puts extra strain on state courts 

and judges.

53. Defendants’ practices offend public policy, have a direct consumer nexus, and 

affect consumers as a whole. These practices directly implicate consumer protection concerns 

because the conduct causes substantial emotional and financial harm to consumers by 

subjecting them to multiple improper legal actions.

54. Defendants’ communications cause negative emotions including hopelessness, 

annoyance, aggravation, and other garden variety emotional distress.

COUNT I – FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs into this count.

56. Defendants violated 115 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(a) and 1692e(10) when they 

filed simultaneous and multiple lawsuits on a single alleged debt.

57. Defendants sought unauthorized collection costs, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f, when they filed multiple lawsuits against Plaintiff on the same alleged debt.

58. Defendants engaged in an unfair practice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, when 

they filed multiple lawsuits against Plaintiff on the same alleged debt.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against 

Defendant as follows:

A. Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); 

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9

B. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2); 

C. Costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(3); and 

D. Such other or further relief as this Court deems proper. 

COUNT II—ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT FOR FALSE AND DECEPTIVE 

BUSINESS PRACTICES

59. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as set forth fully in this count.

60. Defendants violated the ICFA by filing multiple lawsuits on the same alleged 

debt.

61. Defendants’ filing of three lawsuits was a deceptive practice, in violation of the 

ICFA, because it would make a consumer believe they have to pay a debt three times to clear 

their name.

62. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ actions including harm to his reputation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and 

against Defendants as follows: 

A. Actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;

B. Punitive damages;

C. Plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs;

D. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT III—ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS

PRACTICES

63. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as set forth fully in this count.

64. Defendants violated the ICFA by filing multiple lawsuits on the same alleged 

debt.

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10

65. Defendants’ filing of three lawsuits was an unfair practice, in violation of the 

ICFA, because it would force consumers to settle non-existent claims; it makes it appear to the 

public that a consumer is more indebted then they are; and/or is generally coercive.

66. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ actions including harm to his reputation. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and 

against Defendants as follows: 

A. Actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;

B. Punitive damages;

C. Plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs;

D. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT V—FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY—ALL DEFENDANTS

67. Defendants placed three lawsuits over the same alleged debt into the public 

record.

68. Defendants’ publication portrayed the indebtedness as much higher than it 

claimed it to be.

69. Plaintiff’s inaccurate information in the public record is offensive and 

embarrassing to those persons who viewed it.

70. Defendants published the information regarding Plaintiff’s debt with reckless 

disregard as to its offensiveness.

71. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant Defendants’ portrayal of his in a false light.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and 

against Defendants as follows: 

A. Actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11

B. Punitive damages;

C. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

By: /s/ Michael W. Drew

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Michael W. Drew

Neighborhood Legal LLC

20 N. Clark Suite 3300

Chicago, IL 60602

Ph: (312) 967-7220

mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-01842 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11