IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Miguel Zapata, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) No. 1:20-cv-2196

)

Resurgence Legal Group, P.C., an )

Illinois corporation and Unifund CCR, )

LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, )

)

Defendants. ) Jury Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Miguel Zapata, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"), for a finding that Defendants’

collection actions violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages for those violations and 

alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this District because: a) the acts and transactions 

occurred from here; b) Plaintiff resides here; and, b) Defendants reside and transact

business here.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Miguel Zapata ("Zapata"), is a citizen of the State of Illinois, 

residing in the Northern District of Illinois, from whom Defendants attempted to collect a

defaulted consumer debt, which was allegedly owed for a US Bank credit card.

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2

4. Defendant, Resurgence Legal Group, P.C. (“Resurgence"), is an Illinois

professional corporation and law firm that acts as a debt collector, as defined by §

1692a of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to 

collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts.

Resurgence operates a defaulted debt collection business in Illinois, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, and California, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in those

states. In fact, Defendant Resurgence was acting as a debt collector, as that term is 

defined in the FDCPA, as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from 

Plaintiff. 

5. Defendant, Unifund CCR, LLC (“Unifund"), is an Ohio limited liability 

company that acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a of the FDCPA, because it 

regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly or 

indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not originate. Unifund operates a 

nationwide defaulted debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts from 

consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. 

6. Defendant Unifund is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios of

defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar. Defendant Unifund’s principal, if not 

sole, business purpose is the collection of defaulted consumer debts originated by 

others.

7. Defendants Resurgence and Unifund are authorized to conduct business 

in Illinois, and maintain registered agents here, see, records from the Illinois Secretary 

of State, attached as Group Exhibit A. In fact, Defendants conduct extensive business in 

Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On December 19, 2008, Unifund CCR, represented by Resurgence, filed a 

complaint against a Miguel Zapata, a/k/a/ Miguel Bravo Zapata, a/k/a Miguel A. Zapata, 

regarding a consumer credit card debt he owed originally to US Bank, in a matter styled: 

Unifund CCR v. Miguel A. Zapata a/k/a A. Miguel Zapata a/k/a Miguel A. Bravo a/k/a 

Miguel A. Bravo Zapata, 08 M1 199718 (“State Court Lawsuit”). A copy of which is 

attached as Exhibit B (without exhibits); the State Court Docket, showing the date the

lawsuit was filed, is attached as Exhibit C.

9. On January 27, 2009, Defendants served Plaintiff, Miguel Zapata

(hereinafter “Mr. Zapata of Chicago”), via substitute service on his mother, at his 

residential address in Chicago on South Kolin Avenue. A copy of this substitute service 

is attached as Exhibit D.

10. Mr. Zapata of Chicago has impaired vision, has never had any credit card

debts, let alone a debt owed to US Bank. Therefore, when he was served, he 

immediately sought help from the legal aid attorneys at Lighthouse, an organization in 

Chicago which assists those with vision-related disabilities, regarding the State Court

Lawsuit. With the assistance of Lighthouse, Mr. Zapata of Chicago learned that his 

social security number did not match the social security number on file with Resurgence

and Unifund for the Miguel Zapata that has been sued in the State Court Complaint.

11. On February 23, 2009, with the assistance of the legal aid attorneys at

Lighthouse, Mr. Zapata of Chicago successfully quashed the substitute service and an 

alias summons was issued for another address. A copy of this Order is attached as 

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4

Exhibit E.

12. On August 20, 2011, Defendants, Resurgence and Unifund, allegedly 

obtained personal service on another Miguel Zapata, in Steger, Illinois (“Mr. Zapata of 

Steger”). A copy of this proof of service is attached as Exhibit F.

13. Thereafter, Defendant Resurgence obtained a default judgment against

Mr. Zapata of Steger on September 26, 2011, see, Exhibit C.

1

14. More than ten years after Mr. Zapata of Chicago had quashed 

Resurgence’s and Unifund’s service as to him, on November 20, 2019, Defendants filed 

a Petition to Revive Judgment for the 2011 judgment they had obtained against Mr. 

Zapata of Steger. A copy of the Petition to Revive is attached as Exhibit G.

15. On November 29, 2019, Defendants served the Notice of Filing on Mr.

Zapata of Chicago, at his South Kolin residence, at 6:46 AM, when a process servicer 

knocked on his bedroom window, which woke him up and terrified him, see, Exhibit H, 

filed proof of service.

16. Mr. Zapata of Chicago was further distressed when he read the paperwork 

associated with the petition for revival – with some trouble, due to his vision impairment

– and realized the service of process was regarding the same summons he had been 

wrongly served with over ten years prior, at the same address. Mr. Zapata of Chicago 

thought that he had cleared up years ago, and feared that this matter had not actually

been straightened out at all and that Defendants were determined to collect from him a 

debt him that he did not owe.

1. No copy of the Judgment against Mr. Zapata of Steger was available in the file for the 

State Court Lawsuit, nor has any copy of any judgment (against himself, or Mr. Zapata 

of Steger) ever been served on Mr. Zapata of Chicago.

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5

17. After spending over a month obtaining the archived court file for the State 

Court Lawsuit involving the Mr. Zapata of Steger, with some assistance from the help 

desk at the Cook County Courthouse, Mr. Zapata of Chicago was able to determine that 

the service had indeed been quashed as to him, and a judgment had been entered

against Mr. Zapata of Steger, see, Exhibit C, G. Mr. Zapata of Chicago has no 

relationship with, nor any knowledge of Mr. Zapata of Steger.

18. Accordingly, Mr. Zapata of Chicago was forced to hire an attorney to 

represent him as to the collection actions of Defendants Resurgence and Unifund in the 

State Court Lawsuit.

19. On February 13, 2020, Resurgence and Unifund filed a motion for revival 

of the judgment it had obtained against Mr. Zapata of Steger in 2011, but wrongly 

served this motion on Plaintiff, Mr. Zapata of Chicago, at the South Kolin address, rather 

than the Mr. Zapata of Steger. This motion was set for hearing on March 16, 2020. A

copy of this motion is attached as Exhibit I.

20. On March 4, 2020, Mr. Zapata of Chicago’s counsel, Angie K. Robertson, 

sent a letter, via facsimile to Defendants Resurgence2and Unifund advising them that 

Mr. Zapata was represented by counsel and demanded that Defendants cease their

post-judgment collection actions against Mr. Zapata of Chicago, as the service of 

process as to him had been quashed. A copy of this letter and fax confirmation are

attached as Exhibit J.

2 The fax number for Resurgence used by Plaintiff’s counsel was found in the latest 

Sullivan’s Law Directory, published by Law Bulletin Media. Moreover, the same fax 

number appears on Resurgent’s webpage under “contact us”, see, https://

resurgencelegal.com/contact/

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6

21. Nonetheless, on March 19, 2020, Defendants sent a letter directly to Mr. 

Zapata of Chicago, at his South Kolin address, advising him that they had obtained an 

order reviving the judgment that they had obtained against him, plus interest and costs,

in an amount totaling $6,643.53. A copy of this letter and order are attached as Group 

Exhibit J.

22. Plaintiff was greatly alarmed and confused that the Defendants were

continuing to directly communicate with him despite the fact that he was represented by 

counsel. Mr. Zapata of Chicago was concerned that his personal information would 

now become associated with this judgment, despite the efforts that he had taken over a 

decade ago to have service quashed, and despite the efforts that his counsel had 

recently taken. Mr. Zapata of Chicago was also concerned that he could now be subject 

to garnishment of his assets if the judgment was not paid.

23. Defendants’ collection actions complained of herein occurred within one 

year of the date of this Complaint. 

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

“unsophisticated consumer” standard, see, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership,

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

COUNT I

Violation of §1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA –

Communication With A Consumer Represented By Counsel

25. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-24.

26. Section 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from 

communicating with a consumer if the debt collector knows the consumer is 

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7

represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can 

readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). 

27. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was represented by counsel in connection 

with this alleged debt because his attorney, Angie Robertson, had given notice, in 

writing, that Plaintiff Mr. Zapata of Chicago was represented by counsel (Exhibit J), and 

did not owe the debt at issue. By directly sending Plaintiff a letter and an order 

concerning the revival of judgment (Exhibit K), despite being advised that Mr. Zapata of 

Chicago was represented by counsel, Defendants violated § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

28. Defendants’ violation of § 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA renders it liable for 

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, see, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k.

COUNT II

Violation Of § 1692e Of The FDCPA –

False, Deceptive Or Misleading Collection Actions

29. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-24.

30. Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any 

false and/or any deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with the 

collection of a debt, including, but not limited to, the false representation of the 

character, amount or legal status of any debt, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A). 

31. Defendants, knew that Mr. Zapata of Chicago did not owe the US Bank 

debt that they were attempting to collect because: 1) the order quashing service on 

Plaintiff Zapata of Chicago at his South Kolin address was readily available in the case 

file, see Exhibit E, and 2) the proof of service showing the address of Mr. Zapata of 

Steger – the actual defendant in Defendants’ State Court Lawsuit, against whom 

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8

Defendants had obtained a judgment in 2009 – was also readily available in the file, 

see, Exhibit F.

32. By serving Mr. Zapata of Chicago with a Petition to Revive Judgment

(Exhibits G, H), and the motion for revival of judgment (Exhibit I), when Defendants 

knew they were serving the wrong person, Defendants used false, deceptive or

misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt that Mr. Zapata 

did not owe, in violation § 1692e of the FDCPA,

33. Defendants’ violations of § 1692e of the FDCPA render them liable for 

actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

COUNT III

Violation Of § 1692d Of The FDCPA --

Abusive And Harassing Collection Actions

34. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-24.

35. Section 1692d of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from engaging in 

any conduct, the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any

person in connection with the collection of a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. 

36. Defendants, by: 1) serving Mr. Zapata of Chicago with a Petition to Revive 

Judgment, and a motion for revival of judgment; 2) wrongly obtaining an order reviving a 

judgment against him; and 3) communicating with him directly when they knew he was 

represented by counsel, despite the facts in the court file (Exhibits E, F) and the

communication sent by his attorney on March 4, 2020 (Exhibit J), which clearly showed 

that service against the r. Zapata residing on South Kolin had been quashed, engaged

in conduct, the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse him, in 

violation of § 1692d of the FDCPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9

37. Defendants’ violations of § 1692d of the FDCPA render them liable for

actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. §

1692k.

COUNT IV

Violation Of § 1692f Of The FDCPA --

Unfair Or Unconscionable Collection Actions

38. Plaintiff adopts and realleges ¶¶ 1-24.

39. Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any 

unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, see, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692f. 

40. Defendants, by: 1) serving Mr. Zapata of Chicago with a Petition to Revive 

Judgment, and a motion for revival of judgment; 2) wrongly obtaining an order reviving a 

judgment against him; and 3) communicating with him directly when they knew he was 

represented by counsel, despite the facts in the court file (Exhibits E, F) and the

communication sent by his attorney on March 4, 2020 (Exhibit J), which clearly showed 

that service against the Mr. Zapata residing on South Kolin had been quashed, used

unfair and unconscionable means to collect the debt, in violation of § 1692f of the

FDCPA.

41. Defendants’ violations of § 1692f of the FDCPA render them liable for 

actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, see, 15 U.S.C. §

1692k.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, Miguel Zapata, prays that this Court:

1. Find that Defendants’ collection actions violate the FDCPA;

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Zapata and against Defendants, for

actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by § 

1692k(a) of the FDCPA; and,

3. Grant such further relief as deemed just.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Miguel Zapata, demands trial by jury.

Miguel Zapata,

By: /s/ David J. Philipps___________

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Dated: April 8, 2020

David J. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06196285)

Mary E. Philipps (Ill. Bar No. 06197113)

Angie K. Robertson (Ill. Bar No. 06302858)

Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.

9760 S. Roberts Road

Suite One

Palos Hills, Illinois 60465

(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)

davephilipps@aol.com

mephilipps@aol.com

angie@philippslegal.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02196 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/08/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10