1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW MESSER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 

)

SWIFT BPO PARTNERS, )

LLC, a Nevada corporation, )

and MARIE ANN PETREE, )

an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Matthew Messer (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, Messer Strickler, 

Ltd., and for his Complaint against the Defendants, Swift BPO Partners, LLC (“Swift BPO”), and 

Marie Ann Petree (“Petree”)(collectively, the “Defendants” where appropriate) for violations of 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the “FDCPA”) states the 

following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court derives jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims from 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1337, and from 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

2. Venue in this District is proper for being that in which Plaintiff resides, and as that 

to which Defendants sent harassing letters and placed threatening phone calls.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in Lake

County in the Northern District of Illinois, and is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) 

and allegedly owes a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, Swift BPO, is a foreign limited liability company organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Nevada, the principal purpose of whose business is the collection of 

debts, operating a collection agency from its principal place of business at 6372 McCleod Drive, 

Suite 4, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120, and regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due 

or asserted to be owed or due another, and is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

5. Defendant, Petree, is the Owner and Manager of Swift BPO and is personally 

involved in its day-to-day operations, including personal involvement with collection of the 

alleged debt from Plaintiff, and regularly uses the mail and telephone in a business the principal 

purpose of which is the collection of debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another, 

operating as a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants Petree and Swift BPO function as the alter

ego of each other, sharing in the money being collected by a common business enterprise, and 

there has been a blurring of the identities and lines of distinctions between Defendants Petree and 

Swift BPO, who have integrated their resources to achieve a common business purpose and 

function as a single business enterprise, the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts 

owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another, operating as a “debt collector” as defined by 

15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

7. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, in their business dealings, operated 

with unity, and the separateness of each entity has ceased to the extent that holding only one entity 

or person responsible would be an injustice.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants sought to collect from Plaintiff 

an alleged debt arising from transactions incurred for personal purposes.

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

9. Defendants called Plaintiff on February 4, 2020 at 10:00a.m. The person on the 

phone identified himself as Carlos from “Funds Financial”.

10. During that phone call, Defendants accused Plaintiff of owing $231.98 to 9Rounds, 

a now-defunct boxing gym location in the State of Illinois.

11. During that same February 4, 2020 phone call, Defendants threatened Plaintiff by 

stating Plaintiff had until 12:00p.m. to pay the amounts owed or Defendants would credit report 

the alleged debt.

12. That same day, Defendants mailed a debt validation letter to Plaintiff. A true and 

correct copy of Defendants’ Letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.

13. The validation letter sent by Defendants was replete with spelling and grammatical 

errors, worded confusingly, and formatting in a manner that overshadowed the explication of 

Plaintiffs rights in violation of the FDCPA.

13. Defendants threats to credit report the purported debt owed by Plaintiff 

overshadowed the debt validation notice mailed on February 4, 2020, in violation of the FDCPA.

14. One week later, on or about February 11, 2020, Defendants once again placed a 

phone call to Plaintiff.

15. During that second phone call, Defendants told Plaintiff they had not yet credit 

reported the alleged debt, and stated he had to immediately pay the amounts owed over the phone 

or Defendants would credit report the debt that afternoon.

16. The admission by Defendants during the second phone that they had not yet credit 

reported the purported debt demonstrates that the threats made to Plaintiff during the first call were 

false. Defendants’ misrepresentation constitutes a violation of the FDCPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

17. Defendants’ second round of threats to credit report the purported debt, made 

during the February 11, 2020 phone call, overshadowed the validation letter sent to Plaintiff in 

violation of the FDCPA.

18. Defendants’ phone calls were “communications” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 

1692a(2).

19. Plaintiff does not – nor ever did – owe any debt, and informed Defendants of same.

20. The alleged debt was based on a contract between Plaintiff and 9Rounds for an 

eight-week boxing class over the summer of 2019. That contract had been paid in full at the time 

of Defendants’ collection efforts, and there was never any outstanding amount owed on it. A true 

and correct copy of the contract between Plaintiff and 9Rounds is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

21. Moreover, Plaintiff was a minor child at the time the contract was originally entered 

into between him and 9Rounds. As such the contract was invalid and voidable from its inception 

under the laws of Illinois. Accordingly, Defendants’ statements to Plaintiff that he owed money 

under the 9Rounds contract was a further misrepresentation in connection with the collection of a 

debt, which constituted violations of the FDCPA.

22. 225 ILCS 425/2.5 requires all consumer collection agencies to first register with 

the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation before attempting to collect a 

debt.

23. 225 ILCS 425/4.5 makes it unlawful for “[a]ny person...to practice as a collection 

agency without being licensed under this Act” and subject them to civil penalties up to $10,000.

24. Defendants were attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff and were required to 

register with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

25. At no time during Defendants’ contact with Plaintiff was any Defendant registered 

with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation as a consumer collection 

agency.

26. As of the date of this Complaint, Defendants have not credit reported the alleged 

past-due debt.

COUNT I

MAKING VERBAL THREATS

THAT “OVERSHADOW” THE EXPLICATION

OF CONSUMER RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g

27. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

28. On at least two occasions in February 2020, Defendants made verbal threats to 

credit report the purported debt owed by Plaintiffs in a manner that overshadowed the debt 

validation notice in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT II

SENDING A VALIDATION 

LETTER ASSEMBLED IN A MANNER

SUCH THAT THE EXPLICATION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS 

WERE “OVERSHADOWED” IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g

29. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

30. Defendants sent Plaintiff a validation letter replete with spelling errors, misleading 

verbiage, and confusing formatting such that it “overshadowed” a clear explication of Plaintiff’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

rights as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. See, Terran v. Kaplan, 109 F.3d 1428, 1432-33 (9th

Cir. 1997); Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County, 171 F.3d 1197, 1202, 1203 (9th Cir. 1999).

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT III

FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS

IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)

31. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

32. Defendants falsely represented the amount of the alleged debt in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT IV

FALSE OR MISLEADING 

REPRESENTATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5)

33. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

34. Defendants threatened to take an action with no intention to take such action in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT V

FALSE OR MISLEADING 

REPRESENTATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5)

35. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

36. Defendants threatened to take an action that could not legally be taken in violation 

of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT VI

FALSE OR MISLEADING 

REPRESENTATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10)

37. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 above as if fully set forth herein.

38. Defendants used false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to 

collect the alleged debt, including making false threats in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).

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

against Defendants for:

Damages;

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit; and

Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jacob A. Rheaume

Attorney for Plaintiff

Messer Strickler, Ltd.

225 W. Washington, Suite 575

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.334.3474 (direct)

312.334.3473 (fax)

jrheaume@messerstrickler.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02967 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8