UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY PETERSON, on behalf of )

himself and all others similarly situated, )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

) Case No. 20-cv-2503

v. )

)

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND )

CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and )

ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., )

)

) Jury Demanded

DEFENDANTS. )

CLASS COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Jeffrey Peterson, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brings this action 

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), 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 parts of the acts and transactions occurred 

here and Defendant transacts substantial business here.

STANDING

3. Defendants sent Plaintiff a collection letter that misrepresented the time by which 

he was required to respond to a state court lawsuit.

4. Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to receive all communications from a 

debt collector free from misrepresentation. E.g. Genova v. IC Sys., Inc., No. CV 16-5621, 2017 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
WL 2289289, at *3 (D.N.J. May 25, 2017).

5. Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendant’s conduct, giving rise 

to standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016), quoting 

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has the power to define 

injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none 

existed before.); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Congress can 

create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from misrepresentations, and if that right 

is invaded the holder of the right can sue without running afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no 

other injury[.]”).

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Peterson, (“Plaintiff”), is a resident of the state of Illinois from 

whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt allegedly owed for a Credit 

One Bank, N.A. 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 Funding LLC (“Midland”), is a Delaware limited liability 

company with its principal place of business at 3111 Camino Del Rio N, #1300, San Diego, CA 

92108. It does or transacts business in Illinois. (Exhibit A, Record from Illinois Secretary of 

State).

8. Midland holds a collection agency license from the state of Illinois (Exhibit B, 

Record from Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation).

9. Midland’s principal purpose is the collection of debts, as it derives all of its 

revenue from purchasing and recovering portfolios of defaulted receivables from consumers. See 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
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).

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

FDCPA.

11. Defendant, Midland Credit Management (“MCM”), is a Kansas corporation with 

its principal place of business at 3111 Camino Del Rio N, Suite 1300, San Diego, CA 92108-

8875. MCM does or transacts business in Illinois. (Exhibit C, Record from Illinois Secretary of 

State).

12. MCM is a collection agency that attempts to collect debts held in the name of 

Midland Funding, LLC.

13. MCM holds a collection agency license from the State of Illinois. (Exhibit D, 

Record from Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation).

14. MCM regularly collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts due or 

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

of the FDCPA. 

15. 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. (Exhibit E, Record from the 

Delaware Secretary of State).

16. 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, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
credit unions, consumer finance companies, commercial retailers, and 

telecommunication companies. Defaulted receivables may also include 

receivables subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

17. Encore’s primary purpose is the collection of debt 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

18. According to Midland, Peterson incurred an alleged debt for goods and services 

used for personal family or household purposes, originally for a Credit One Bank, N.A.

consumer credit account (“alleged debt”).

19. The alleged debt is thus a “debt” as that term is defined at § 1692a(5) of the 

FDCPA, and a “consumer debt” as that term is defined in 225 ILCS 425/2 of the ICAA.

20. Midland later allegedly purchased the debt and retained MCM to collect the 

alleged debt. 

21. On April 4, 2019 MCM initiated a state court lawsuit to collect the debt and

Peterson was served with summons and complaint on or about April 26, 2019. (Exhibit F, State 

Court Summons and Complaint).

22. The complaint had an appearance/return date of May 6, 2019. 

23. The complaint sought “$2,395.36 Plus Interest and Court Costs.”

24. On April 23, 2019 MCM also sent Peterson a letter informing him of the lawsuit.

25. The letter stated in relevant part: “If we can’t resolve this out of court, we intend 

to continue with this lawsuit and will request the judge grant Midland Funding LLC a judgement 

for the full balance owed. Reply by: May 23, 2019.” (emphasis original) (Exhibit G, Letter)

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
26. Peterson believed and the unsophisticated consumer would believe that they had 

until May 23, 2019 to prevent further legal action or to take any action regarding the lawsuit.

27. In fact, if Peterson did not file an appearance by May 6, 2019, a default would 

have been entered against him.

28. Further, Peterson would have waived his right to a jury trial as Illinois Supreme 

Court rules require defendants in small claims actions to file their demand for a jury when their 

appearance is due. 

29. The letter is thus false, deceptive, and misleading.

30. Suing consumers and then sending them false information about the lawsuit that 

would lead them to a) have a default judgment entered against them; and/or b) waive their 

constitutional right to a jury is unfair, and unconscionable.

31. The letter also stated: “Current Balance: $2,395.36”; “Account Balance: 

$2,395.36”; and, “Total Remaining Balance due: $2,395.36.”

32. MCM claimed they would ask the judge for the “full balance owed.” 

33. In fact, Midland’s complaint explicitly requests more than the full balance – it 

includes a demand for court costs.

34. However, Midland attached an affidavit to the state court complaint that 

specifically states that plaintiff is not seeking additional amounts after charge-off. See Exhibit F, 

State Court Complaint.

35. The letter is thus false, deceptive, and misleading for this additional reason. 

36. The FDCPA broadly prohibits the, “use of any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
37. MCM’s 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).

38. The FDCPA also prohibits the, “use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or 

attempt to collect any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

39. MCM and Midland engage in trade and commerce in the State of Illinois –

namely, debt collection.

40. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1-12, 

broadly prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” including but not limited to the use of 

any deception, fraud, false promise, or suppression or concealment of any material fact with the 

intent that a person rely on such a misrepresentation. 815 ILCS 505/2.

41. MCM’s letter is unfair and deceptive because it incorrectly states the amount of 

the judgment that will be sought and incorrectly states the actual deadline for the consumer to 

file their appearance in the lawsuit.

42. MCM and Midland intended to send the deceptive letter to Peterson and intended 

Peterson rely on the misrepresentations in the letter.

43. The misrepresentations in the letter and the unfair practice of sending such letters 

caused to Peterson experience negative emotions about, including annoyance, aggravation, and 

other garden variety emotional distress.

COUNT I—FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT—CLASS CLAIM

44. Plaintiff re-alleges the above paragraphs as if set forth fully in this count.

45. Encore, MCM and Midland violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692f by sending 

letters to consumers in order to collect a debt where such letters falsely, deceptively, and unfairly 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
misrepresented the date on which the consumer must file an appearance and the amount of 

judgment MCM and Midland were in fact requesting. 

46. Encore, MCM and Midland violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692f by sending 

letters to consumers in order to collect a debt where such letters falsely, deceptively, and unfairly 

misrepresented the amount it was seeking in a lawsuit it stated had been filed against Plaintiff.

47. Plaintiff brings a claim on behalf of himself and the following class (False Reply 

Date Class):

a. all persons in Illinois,

b. whom MCM and Midland sued

c. for the purpose of collecting a debt,

d. and were sent a letter substantially similar to Exhibit B, 

e. where the return date on the complaint is different from the ‘reply date’ in the 

letter

48. Plaintiff brings a claim on behalf of himself and the following additional class

(False Judgment Class):

a. all persons in Illinois,

b. whom MCM and Midland sued

c. for the purpose of collecting a debt,

d. and also sent them a letter substantially similar to Exhibit B, 

e. where the letter states an amount being sought, but where;

f. additional amounts are being sought in the referenced lawsuit.

49. Midland is a bulk debt-buyer and sues thousands of consumers in Illinois each 

year through MCM to collect those debts. The Letter at issue is a form letter, and nearly identical 

copies were sent to Illinois consumers in the course of thousands of lawsuits. The class is thus so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

50. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which questions 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. A predominant 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
common question includes whether Midland and MCM’s letter is false, deceptive, or misleading 

and an unfair and unconscionable practice.

51. Peterson will fairly and adequately represent the members of the class. Plaintiff 

has retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of consumer credit and debt collection 

claims and class actions. 

52. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

the controversy. Rather than conducting thousands of individual trials, the liability of MCM and 

Midland can be determined in a single proceeding. The evidence required to establish the 

violations of the FDCPA is identical for each class member. Moreover, Congress expressly 

contemplated class actions as a means of enforcing the FDCPA.

WHEREFORE, Jeffrey Peterson asks that the Court enter judgment in his favor and in 

favor of the class and against Defendants Encore, Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit 

Management as follows:

A. Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2) in the 

amount of $500,000;

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

1692k(a)(3); and

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

COUNT II—ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS 

PRACTICES ACT

53. Plaintiff Jeffrey Peterson re-alleges the above paragraphs if set forth fully in this 

count.

54. MCM, Midland, and Encore violated 815 ILCS 505/2 by sending letters to 

consumers in order to collect a debt where such letters falsely, deceptively, and unfairly 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
misrepresented the date on which the consumer must file an appearance and the amount of 

judgment MCM and Midland were in fact requesting. 

55. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and the following two classes.

56. The first class (ICFA - False Reply Date Class) consists of 

a. all persons in Illinois,

b. whom MCM and Midland sued

c. for the purpose of collecting a debt,

d. and were sent a letter substantially similar to Exhibit B, 

e. where the return date on the complaint is different from the ‘reply date’ in the 

letter

57. The second class (ICFA - False Judgment Class) consists of 

a. all persons in Illinois,

b. whom MCM and Midland sued

c. for the purpose of collecting a debt,

d. and also sent them a letter substantially similar to Exhibit B, 

e. where fees, interest, or costs are sought in the complaint, but not mentioned in 

the letter regarding the judgment sought

58. Midland is a bulk debt-buyer and sues thousands of consumers in Illinois each 

year through MCM. The Letter at issue is a form letter, and nearly identical copies were sent to 

Illinois consumers in the course of thousands of lawsuits. The class is thus so numerous that 

joinder of all members is impracticable.

59. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, which questions 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. A predominant 

common question includes whether Midland and MCM’s letter is an unfair and/or deceptive 

practice under ICFA.

60. Peterson will fairly and adequately represent the members of the class. Plaintiff 

has retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of consumer credit and debt collection 

claims and class actions. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
61. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

the controversy. Rather than conducting thousands of individual trials, the liability of MCM and 

Midland can be determined in a single proceeding. The evidence required to establish the 

violations of the ICFA is identical for each class member.

62. WHEREFORE, Jeffrey Peterson asks that the Court enter judgment in his favor 

and in favor of the classes and against Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management 

as follows:

A. Actual Damages under 815 ILCS 505/10a

B. Punitive Damages under 815 ILCS 505/10a;

C. Costs and reasonable attorney fees under 815 ILCS 505/10c; and

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

By: s/Michael 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-02503 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10