1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARCHELLE GINSBURG, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ENDURANCE WARRANTY 

SERVICES, L.L.C., 

Defendant.

CIVIL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04652

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT 

NOW comes MARCHELLE GINSBURG (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, 

Consumer Law Partners, LLC, complaining as to the conduct of ENDURANCE WARRANTY 

SERVICES, L.L.C. (“Defendant”), as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer

Protection Act (“TCPA”) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq., the Electronic Funds Transfer Act 

(“EFTA”) under 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq., and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business 

Practices Act (“ICFA”) under 815 ILCS 505/, for Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises under and is brought pursuant to the TCPA and the EFTA. Subject matter

jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 47 U.S.C §227, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 

and 1337, as the action arises under the laws of the United States. Supplemental jurisdiction exists 

for Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Defendant conducts business 

in the Northern District of Illinois and a substantial portion the events or omissions giving rise to 

the claims occurred within the Northern District of Illinois.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a natural person over 18 years-of-age residing in Lake County, Illinois, which 

is located within the Northern District of Illinois. 

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

6. Defendant is a third-party warranty service provider that provides extended vehicle 

protection plans to consumers across the country.1

 Defendant regularly uses the phone to solicit 

consumers to enroll in its services, and uses the phone and mail to collect upon consumers who 

have defaulted on their extended warranty policy. Defendant’s principal place of business is 

located at 400 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 105, Northbrook, Illinois 60062, and its registered agent is 

Cogency Global Inc., located at 600 South Second Street, Suite 404, Springfield, Illinois 62704. 

Defendant regularly solicits and collects upon consumers located within the state of Illinois. 

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

8. Defendant acted through its agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, 

successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives and insurers at all 

times relevant to the instant action.

FACTS SUPPORTING CAUSES OF ACTION

9. In early 2020, Plaintiff consistently began receiving calls from Defendant to her cellular 

phone, (847) XXX-1902. 

 

1 https://www.endurancewarranty.com/why-endurance/

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3

10. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, owner, and operator of the cellular

phone ending in -1902. Plaintiff is and has always been financially responsible for the cellular

phone and its services.

11. Upon answering Defendant’s phone calls, Plaintiff was informed that the warranty for her 

automobile was set to expire, and that Defendant was able to provide her with extended coverage. 

12. Plaintiff was confused as to why Defendant was contacting her, considering the fact that 

Plaintiff never consented to receive Defendant’s phone calls, nor was Plaintiff interested in 

obtaining a third-party extended vehicle protection plan.

13. Yet, Defendant’s representatives were persistent in their solicitation efforts toward 

Plaintiff, and ultimately gave Plaintiff the impression that Defendant was affiliated with her 

previous vehicle warranty policy. 

14. Accordingly, Plaintiff succumbed to Defendant’s harassing solicitation phone calls and 

was deceived into enrolling in one of Defendant’s protection plans. 

15. To that end, Plaintiff supplied Defendant with her banking information, but did not 

authorize Defendant to withdraw any funds from her bank account.

16. Moreover, Plaintiff never received any initial documentation or agreement from Defendant 

evincing her authorization.

17. Yet, much to Plaintiff’s dismay, Defendant subsequently withdrew an unauthorized sum 

of money from Plaintiff’s bank account. 

18. In addition, Defendant continued with its systematic phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4

19. During answered calls from Defendant, Plaintiff experienced a noticeable pause, lasting a 

handful of seconds in length, and had to repeatedly say “hello” before she was connected with a 

live representative. 

20. During other answered calls, Plaintiff was subjected to a pre-recorded message prior to 

being connected with one of Defendant’s agents. 

21. Upon speaking with a representative, Plaintiff was informed that Defendant was attempting 

to collect upon a defaulted vehicle protection plan that was purportedly incurred by Plaintiff 

(“subject debt”). 

22. Plaintiff was highly confused by Defendant’s phone calls, as she was not interested in 

Defendant’s services and did not authorize Defendant’s withdrawal of funds. 

23. As a result of the persistent nature of Defendant’s phone calls, Plaintiff demanded that 

Defendant stop contacting her. 

24. In spite of Plaintiff’s demands, Defendant has willfully continued to place systematic calls 

to Plaintiff’s cellular phone through the filing of this lawsuit. 

25. Defendant has also placed multiple calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone during the same day, 

even after Plaintiff notified Defendant to cease its communications. 

26. Defendant has placed not less than 40 calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone, in spite of 

Plaintiff’s requests. 

27. Defendant has primarily used the phone number (866) 222-9989 when placing calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone, but upon belief, Defendant has used other phone numbers as well.

28. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned phone number ending in -9989 is

regularly utilized by Defendant to make outgoing solicitation and collection calls to consumers. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5

29. Due to Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was forced to hire counsel and her damages 

therefore include reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.

30. Due to Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, punitive damages 

and all other appropriate measures to punish and deter Defendant and other solicitors and collectors 

from engaging in the unlawful solicitation and collection practices described in this Complaint, 

supra.

31. Plaintiff has been unfairly and unnecessarily harassed by Defendant’s actions.

32. Plaintiff has suffered additional concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s actions, 

including but not limited to: invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies collection 

telephone calls, emotional distress, increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction 

caused by the never-ending calls, increased usage of her telephone services, loss of cellular phone 

capacity, diminished cellular phone functionality, decreased battery life on her cellular phone, and 

diminished space for data storage on her cellular phone.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set forth herein. 

34. The TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(iii), prohibits calling persons on their 

cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) or pre-recorded messages

without their consent. The TCPA, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), defines an ATDS as “equipment 

which has the capacity...to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or 

sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers.” 

35. Defendant used an ATDS in connection with its communications directed towards 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone. The significant pause, lasting several seconds in length, that Plaintiff 

experienced during answered calls from Defendant before she was connected to a live

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6

representative is instructive that an ATDS was being utilized to generate the phone calls. 

Additionally, Defendant’s continued communications to Plaintiff’s cellular phone after she 

demanded that the phone calls stop further demonstrates Defendant’s use of an ATDS. Moreover,

the nature and frequency of Defendant’s contacts points to the involvement of an ATDS. 

36. Upon information and belief, the system employed by Defendant to place phone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone 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.

37. Notwithstanding the aforementioned facts, Defendant has also used pre-recorded messages 

when placing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone. 

38. Defendant violated the TCPA by placing at least 40 phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone using an ATDS and pre-recorded messages without Plaintiff’s consent. Plaintiff did not 

have any business relationship with Defendant nor did she grant it permission to call her cellular 

phone. Rather, Defendant was attempting to trick Plaintiff into enrolling in its services, and any 

consent that Plaintiff may have given Defendant was specifically revoked by Plaintiff’s demands 

that it cease contacting her. 

39. The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff were regarding business transactions and not 

for emergency purposes as defined by the TCPA under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(i).

40. Under the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff

for at least $500.00 per call. Moreover, Defendant’s willful and knowing violations of the TCPA 

should trigger this Honorable Court’s ability to triple the damages to which Plaintiff is otherwise 

entitled to under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C). Calling an innocent individual over 40 times is willful 

and knowing behavior, especially since Plaintiff notified Defendant to stop contacting her. 

Defendant was aware that Plaintiff did not understand what, if any, relationship she had with 

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7

Defendant, and even after withdrawing an unauthorized sum of money from Plaintiff’s bank 

account, as well as being told to stop calling, Defendant consciously chose to proceed with its 

unlawful conduct in light of that knowledge. Defendant did not have a legal right to contact 

Plaintiff, but its conduct exemplifies that Defendant will attempt to harass innocent consumers into 

submission. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MARCHELLE GINSBURG, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor as follows:

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff damages of at least $500.00 per phone call and treble damages 

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(3)(B)&(C);

c. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees; 

d. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff; and

e. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II – VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER ACT

41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein. 

42. Plaintiff is a “consumer,” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(6).

43. Defendant is a “financial institution,” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(9). 

a. Violations of EFTA § 1693e(a)

44. The EFTA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), provides that a “preauthorized electronic 

fund transfer from a consumer’s account may be authorized by the consumer only in writing, and 

a copy of such authorization shall be provided to the consumer when made. A consumer may stop 

payment of a preauthorized electronic fund transfer by notifying the financial institution orally or 

in writing at any time up to three business days preceding the scheduled date of such transfer. ” 

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8

45. Defendant violated § 1693e(a) of the EFTA through its unauthorized withdrawal of funds 

from Plaintiff’s bank account. Defendant swindled Plaintiff into enrolling in an extended vehicle 

protection plan, but Plaintiff never authorized Defendant to withdraw funds from her bank account. 

Defendant never supplied Plaintiff with a copy of any authorization, and was even told by Plaintiff 

to stop its attempts to extract money from her. Yet, Defendant continued to make these 

unauthorized withdrawals and extracted Plaintiff’s money without her consent, causing Plaintiff

additional financial distress and loss. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MARCHELLE GINSBURG, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor as follows:

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)(1);

c. Awarding Plaintiff damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)(2)(A);

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)(3); 

e. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff; and

f. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT III – VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS 

CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT 

46. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully set forth herein. 

47. Plaintiff is a “person” and “consumer” as defined by 815 ILCS 505/1(c) and (e) of the 

ICFA.

48. Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff are “trade” and “commerce” as defined by 815 ILCS 

505/1(f) of the ICFA.

49. The ICFA states:

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9

“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any 

deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or 

the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with 

intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or 

omission of such material fact . . . in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in 

fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815 ILCS 505/2.

50. Defendant violated 815 ILCS 505/2 by engaging in an unfair and deceptive act or practice 

in contacting Plaintiff. It was unfair for Defendant to relentlessly contact Plaintiff through means 

of an ATDS and pre-recorded messages after Plaintiff had notified Defendant to stop calling. Yet, 

Defendant placed at least 40 phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone with the intent of harassing 

Plaintiff to subscribe to its services, and ultimately to collect upon the same. Defendant ignored 

Plaintiff’s demands and continued its harassing conduct. Defendant’s continued conduct prompted 

Plaintiff to file this action. 

51. Following its characteristic behavior in placing voluminous calls to consumers, Defendant 

engaged in an unfair and deceptive act, willfully done with the hope that Plaintiff would return its 

calls. Moreover, Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its unfair and deceptive conduct. 

Defendant had been notified of Plaintiff’s demands that it cease calling her and to stop withdrawing 

funds from her bank account, but yet Defendant still proceeded with its harassing and unlawful 

conduct. 

52. Plaintiff lacks a meaningful choice to go about avoiding Defendant’s contacts, which 

places an unreasonable burden on Plaintiff to try and address Defendant’s conduct. This further 

underscores the immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous nature of Defendant’s conduct 

which is contrary to public policy. 

53. The ICFA was designed to protect consumers, such as Plaintiff, from the exact behavior 

committed by Defendant.

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10

54. Defendant’s conduct of placing incessant telephone calls to an individual without that 

individual’s consent, as well as extracting funds from a consumer’s bank account without that 

consumer’s authorization (and failing to subsequently provide proof of the customer’s 

authorization), involves trade practices directed to the market generally and which otherwise 

implicate consumer protection concerns. 

55. Plaintiff was the subject of Defendant’s incessant and relentless efforts. The nature of 

Defendant’s conduct in placing relentless phone calls after consent for such calls had been 

explicitly revoked, as well as its conduct in withdrawing funds without Plaintiff’s authorization 

(and failing to provide Plaintiff with proof of this authorization) is behavior which impacted 

Plaintiff and which would similarly impact other consumers. Such conduct raises serious consumer 

protection concerns as entities like Defendant must not be given free rein to harass consumers by 

placing excessive telephone calls and extracting money without consent. The relief requested 

below serves the interests of consumers by ensuring this pervasively unfair conduct is addressed. 

56. The ICFA further states:

“Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation of 

this Act committed by any other person may bring an action against 

such person. The court, in its discretion may award actual economic 

damages or any other relief which the court deems proper.” 815 

ILCS 505/10a.

57. As pled in paragraphs 17 and 29 through 32, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a 

result of Defendant’s unlawful practices. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to 815 

ILCS 505/10a.

58. An award of punitive damages is appropriate because placing at least 40 phone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular phone without permission, as well as withdrawing an authorized amount of 

money from Plaintiff’s bank account, is egregious conduct. Many of these calls were placed after 

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11

having verbal demands to cease. Such conduct is hallmark of outrageous, willful, and wanton 

behavior. Upon information and belief, Defendant regularly engages in the above-described

behavior against consumers in Illinois and for public policy reasons should be penalized. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MARCHELLE GINSBURG, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor as follows:

a. Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the 

aforementioned statutes and regulations; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff actual and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at 

hearing, for the underlying violations;

c. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees;

f. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff; and

d. Awarding any other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

 

DATED this 7th day of August, 2020. Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis

Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis #6319225

David S. Klain #0066305

CONSUMER LAW PARTNERS, LLC

333 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(267) 422-1000 (phone)

(267) 422-2000 (fax)

teddy@consumerlawpartners.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Marchelle Ginsburg

Case: 1:20-cv-04652 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11