IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: Larry Rhein ) Case No. 

 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT 

 ) 

 ) Judge: 

 ) 

 ) Magistrate: 

v. ) July Demand Requested

 ) 

 ARS National Services, Inc. ) 

 201 West Grand Ave. ) 

Escondido, CA 92025 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

Defendant ) 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Now comes Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, and, for his Complaint alleges as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff, Larry Rhein, brings this action to secure redress from unlawful 

collection practices engaged in by Defendant, ARS National Services, 

Inc.. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 

15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). 

2. The FDCPA broadly prohibits any false, misleading or deceptive 

threats in connection with the collection of a debt 15 U.S.C. Section 

1692e 

3. A debt collection may not imply outcomes that are not legally able to 

come to pass. Lox v. CDA, Ltd., 689 F.3d 818, 825 (7th Cir. 2012)

4. The Seventh Circuit has stated that "[w]hen language in a debt 

collection letter can reasonably be interpreted to imply that the debt 

collector will take action it has no intention or ability to undertake, the 

debt collector that fails to clarify that ambiguity does so at its peril." Lox 

v. CDA, Ltd., 689 F.3d 818, 825 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Gonzales 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
v. Arrow Financial Services,LLC, 660 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)).

5. In Wilder vs. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv1979) (N.D.IL 2016), the Court stated “literally true conditional 

language in a dunning letter can be deceptive if the action suggested is 

legally prohibited.” Id.

6. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated “[I]f Plaintiff can show that 

interest or charges could never accrue and therefore the balance owed 

is truly fixed, then his claim should be allowed to go forward to 

determine if, under those circumstances, Defendants’ letter was 

threatening or materially misleading.” Walker v. Shermeta, Adams, 

Von Allment, PC 623 F. App’x 764, 768 (6th Cir. 2015). 

7. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the “safe 

harbor” language given in Miller v. McCalla, Raymer Padrick, Cobb, 

Nichols, & Clark, LLC, 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000) is not a defense to 

situations that can not legally come to pass. Recently, the Seventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals weighed into the statement in paragraph 24 

that it is not a protection to use this language when an outcome is 

being suggested that is impossible to come to pass. Boucher v. Fin. 

Sys. Of Green Bay, Inc., No. 17-2308, (7th Cir., 2018). 

8. In the same Opinion, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that 

Debt Collectors must tailor boiler plate language to avoid ambiguity. Id.

at 371. 

9. Moreover, the Court in Boucher stated that a Debt Collector is not 

entitled to safe harbor language if it provides inaccurate language. 

Spuhler vs. State Collection Services, Inc., 18-cv-01149, (E.D. Wis. 

2018). 

10. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Millver v. McCalla, 

Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Carlk, LLC., 214 F.3d 872, 875 (7th

Cir. 2000), that the FDCPA requires a debt collector to state “the 

amount of the debt” that they are trying to collect. 

11. The Court in Miller spelled out safe harbor language for collecting 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
debts that are accuring interest or other fees after the date of the initial 

dunning letter. Id. 

12. Following Miller, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated in 

Chuway v. Nat. Action Services, 362 F. 3d 944 (7th Cir. 2004), stated 

that if a Debt Collector is “trying to collect the listed balance plus the 

interest running on it or other charges, he should use the safe harbor 

language of Miller: As of the date of this letter, you owe $___[the exact 

amount due]. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges 

that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay 

may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an 

adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which 

event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection For 

further information, write the undersigned or call 1-800-[phone 

number].” Id. 

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1337, 

1367; and 15 U.S.C. section 1692(d). 

14. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to 

this claim occurred in this District. 

PARTIES 

15. Plaintiff, Larry Rhein (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) incurred an obligation to 

pay money, the primary purpose of which was for personal, family, or 

household uses (the “Debt”). 

16. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois. 

17. Defendant, ARS National Services, Inc., (“Defendant”), is a California 

business entity with an address of 201 West Grand Ave., Escondido, 

CA 92025, operating as a collection agency, and is a “debt collector” 

as the term is defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6). 

18. Unless otherwise stated herein, the term “Defendant” shall refer to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
ARS National Services, Inc.. 

19. At some point, the original creditor, transferred this debt to Defendant 

for debt collection. 

STANDING 

20. Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to Defendant's 

conduct and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in 

this matter. 

21. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered a concrete informational injury as a result 

of Defendant's failure to provide truthful information in connection with 

its attempt to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff.

ALLEGATIONS 

22. The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation in the approximate 

amount of $27,957.73 (the “Debt”) to an original creditor (the 

“Creditor”) 

23. Specifically, Defendant co-signed for his daughter on the 

aforementioned debt and was personally liable for this amount from 

Creditor. 

24. The Debt was purchased, assigned or transferred to Defendant for 

collection, or Defendant was employed by the Creditor to collect to 

Debt. 

25. The Defendant attempted to collect the Debt and, as such, engaged in 

“communications” as defined in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(2). 

26. On November 15, 2019, Defendant mailed Plaintiff an initial collection 

letter. See Exhibit. 

27. Said letter stated the total balance as described in paragraph 19 

above. See Exhibit 

28. Said letter also stated the “Past Due Amount: $1,719.77.” See Exhibit 

29. Said letter’s opening statement stated “ARS is a national organization 

experienced in helping customers resolve their outstanding balances. 

LendingClub Corporation has placed your account referenced above 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
with ARS. We look forward to working with you to find a repayment 

plan that fits your budget.” See Exhibit. 

Impossible Outcomes 

30. Also, within the same letter, Defendant states “[A]s of the date of this 

letter, you owe $1,719.77. Because of interest, late fees, and other 

charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you 

pay may be greater and an adjustment may be necessary after we 

receive your payment.” See Exhibit. 

31. In fact, there is nothing in the agreement (or applicable law) that would 

allow Defendant or current creditor to charge “other charges” on 

Plaintiff’s account. 

32. Defendant is implying and suggesting outcomes that can not legally 

come to pass. 

Amount of Debt

33. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of 

the Complaint as fully stated herein. 

34. As noted above, said letter lists the “Past Due Amount” of “$1719.77.” 

See Exhibit 

35. The opening paragraph said letter ended by stating “[O]nce your 

account is current, ARS will help you work with LendingClub 

Corporation in order to have your account returned to them for 

servicing.” See Exhibit. 

36. This letter is clear to Plaintiff that the only amount it is collecting on is 

the “Past Due Amount” not the entire debt. 

37. Yet, despite the fact that Defendant is only collecting on the “Past Due 

Amount,” nothing in the letter stated that the “Past Due Amount” was 

increasing due to interest and late fees. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FDCPA-15 U.S.C. SECTION 1692, et seq.

38. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of 

this Complaint as though fully stated herein. 

39. The Defendants’ conduct violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
misleading Plaintiff by suggesting “other charges” that could not legally 

come to pass. 

40. The Defendant’s conduct violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g by failing to 

tell Plaintiff that the amount of the debt (the amount being collected on 

by Defendant) was increasing. 

41. Plaintiff is entitled to damages as a result of Defendant’s violations. 

JURY DEMAND 

42. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

43. Plaintiff demands the following relief: 

WHEREFORE, the Court should enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and 

against Defendant for: 

(1) Statutory damages; 

(2) Attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and 

(3) Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ John Carlin__________________ 

 John P. Carlin #6277222 

 Suburban Legal Group, LLP 

 1305 Remington Rd., Ste. C 

 Schaumburg, IL 60173 

 jcarlin@suburbanlegalgroup.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04106 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6