1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RUDOLPH R. EDMONDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADT LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY 

SERVICES and MCCARTHY BURGESS 

& WOLFF, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02025 

COMPLAINT 

 NOW COMES RUDOLPH R. EDMONDSON, through undersigned counsel, complaining 

of Defendants, ADT LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES and MCCARTHY BURGESS & 

WOLFF, INC. (collectively, the “Defendants”), as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking damages as well as injunctive relief for the 

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

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

3. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 

PARTIES 

4. RUDOLPH R. EDMONDSON (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person, over 18-years-ofage, who at all times relevant resided in Chicago, Illinois. 

5. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
2 

6. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39) § 1692a(3). 

7. ADT LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES (“ADT”) is a limited liability 

company organized under the laws of Delaware. 

8. ADT has its principal place of business at 1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, Florida 

33431. 

9. ADT is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39). 

10. MCCARTHY BURGESS & WOLFF, INC (MB&W) is a corporation organized 

under the laws of Ohio. 

11. MB&W has its principal place of business at 26000 Cannon Road, Cleveland, Ohio 

44146. 

12. MB&W is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) as it regularly 

collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. 

13. MB&W is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) as the principal 

purpose of Defendant’s business is the collection of debt. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

14. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of 

the cellular telephone number ending in 0883. 

15. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s number ending in 0883 was assigned to a cellular 

telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

16. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for his cellular telephone 

equipment and services. 

17. Plaintiff obtained home security services through Defenders, Inc. d/b/a Protect 

Your Home (“Defenders”) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
3 

18. Over time, Plaintiff did not pay. 

19. On January 6, 2020, ADT acquired Defenders. 

20. Plaintiff’s $1,311.50 balance – once unpaid – was referred for collection. 

21. Plaintiff’s $1,311.50 balance is a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). 

ADT’s telephone harassment campaign 

22. In spite of being referred for collection, Plaintiff continued to receive phone calls 

from ADT. 

23. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff answered. 

24. Each time, Plaintiff was met by clear pause, and was forced to say “Hello, Hello, 

Hello” prior to being connected to an agent. 

25. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff told ADT “[s]top calling!” 

26. Nonetheless, Plaintiff continues to receive phone calls from numbers leading back 

to ADT – including, (331) 200-8895; (630) 324-0379; (630) 984-7686 and (877) 624-2116. 

27. Specifically, between March 12th and March 24th, Plaintiff has received ten phone 

calls from ADT. 

MB&W’s unlawful collection practices 

28. On February 26, 2020, MB&W sent Plaintiff an initial written communication (the 

“Letter”). 

29. The letter stated: 

Date 02/26/20 

Creditor Defenders, Inc. d/b/a Protect Your Home 

Account # 8722535 

Reference # 33157340 

Account Balance $1,311.50 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
4 

Defenders, Inc. d/b/a Protect Your Home has placed the above referenced account 

with our office for collection activity.... 

30. Three days later, MB&W phoned Plaintiff. 

31. Plaintiff’s caller ID stated: (888) 817-1750. 

32. MB&W identified themselves as ADT. 

33. MB&W did not inform Plaintiff that “[MB&W] is attempting to collect a debt and 

that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” 

34. Nor did MB&W inform Plaintiff that “[t]his communication is from a debt 

collector.” 

35. MB&W simply wanted payment. 

36. Frustrated, Plaintiff simply hung up. 

37. Weeks later, Plaintiff realized that (888) 817-1750 belonged to MB&W when he 

saw the number listed on MB&W’s February 26, 2020 Letter. 

DAMAGES 

38. ADT’s phone calls have caused Plaintiff actual harm, including but not limited to, 

aggravation that accompanies persistent and unwanted phone calls, anxiety, emotional distress, 

increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the phone calls, wear and 

tear to Plaintiff’s cellular phone, intrusion upon and occupation of Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, 

temporary loss of use of Plaintiff’s cellular phone, invasion of privacy, loss of battery charge, loss 

of concentration, mental anguish, nuisance, the per-kilowatt electricity costs required to recharge 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of Plaintiff’s telephone services, and 

wasting Plaintiff’s time. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
5 

39. Concerned with having had his rights violated, Plaintiff sought counsel to ensure 

that Defendants’ unlawful collection practices stopped. 

40. Accordingly, Plaintiff is forced to expend energy and/or time consulting with 

attorneys to put an end to Defendants’ unlawful collection practices. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I: 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) 

41. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as 

though fully set forth herein. 

Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e 

42. Section 1692e of the FDCPA provides: 

[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: 

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the 

consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the 

consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt 

collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information 

obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in 

subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt 

collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal 

pleading made in connection with a legal action. 

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than 

the true name of the debt collector’s business, company, or 

organization. 

43. MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) by failing to disclose that “[MB&W] is 

attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
6 

44. Alternatively, MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) by failing to disclose that 

“[t]his communication is from a debt collector.” 

45. MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14) by identifying themselves as “ADT,” and 

consequently attempting to collect debt using the name of another company. 

Violation(s) of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g 

46. Section 1692g(a) provides: 

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in 

connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the 

following information is contained in the initial communication or the 

consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing: 

(1) the amount of the debt; 

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; 

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt 

of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, 

the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; 

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing 

within the thirty-day period that the debt or any portion thereof, is 

disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a 

copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt 

collector; and 

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the 

thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with 

the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the 

current creditor. 

47. The disclosures set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), frequently referred to as the 

“validation notice,” are required in the initial communications of all debt collection attempts. 

48. The validation notice provisions were included by Congress to ensure that 

consumers would receive notice of their legal rights. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
7 

49. MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) by failing to identify ADT as current 

creditor. 

50. MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) by falsely stating that Defenders, Inc. 

d/b/a Protect Your Home was the current creditor. 

51. As plead above, on January 6, 2020, ADT acquired Defenders. 

52. Plaintiff may enforce the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(11), e(14) and g(a)(2) 

pursuant to section k of the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k) which provides "any debt collector who 

fails to comply with any provision of [the FDCPA] with respect to any person is liable to such 

person in an amount equal to the sum of - 

(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; 

(2) 

(A) in the case of any action by an individual, such additional damages 

as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000.00; or 

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the 

costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined 

by the court. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief: 

A. a finding that MB&W violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(11), e(14) and g(a)(2); 

B. an award of any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of MB&W’s 

violations; 

C. an award of such additional damages to Plaintiff, as the Court may allow, but not 

exceeding $1,000; 

D. an award of costs of this action, together with reasonable attorney’s fees as 

determined by this Court; and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
8 

E. an award of such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT II: 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 et. seq.) 

53. All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as 

though fully set forth herein. 

54. ADT placed or caused to be placed no less than 10 non-emergency calls, including 

but not limited to the aforementioned collection calls, to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone utilizing an 

automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or an artificial or prerecorded voice without 

Plaintiff’s consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). 

55. Upon information and belief, based on the “clear pause” Plaintiff experienced, ADT 

employed an ATDS to place calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

56. Upon information and belief, the ATDS employed by Defendant transfers the call 

to a live representative once a human voice is detected, hence the clear pause. 

57. Upon information and belief, the ATDS employed by Defendant has the capacity

– (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number 

generator; and (B) to dial such numbers. 

58. Upon information and belief, ADT acted through its agents, employees, and/or 

representatives at all times relevant. 

59. As a result of ADT’s violations of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). Plaintiff is entitled 

to receive $500.00 in damages for each violation. 

60. As a result of ADT knowing and willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii), 

Plaintiff is entitled to receive up to $1,500.00 in treble damages for each violation. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief: 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
9 

A. a finding that ADT violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.; 

B. an award of statutory damages of at least $500.00 for each and every violation; 

C. an award of treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation; and 

D. an award of such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all issues in 

this action so triable of right.

DATED: March 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 RUDOLPH R. EDMONDSON 

 

By: /s/ Joseph S. Davidson 

 

 Mohammed O. Badwan 

Joseph S. Davidson 

Victor T. Metroff 

 SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 

 2500 South Highland Avenue 

Suite 200 

 Lombard, Illinois 60148 

 +1 630-575-8181 

 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

 jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com 

 vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02025 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9