UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LUBECK and

ALAN LUBECK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALLIANT CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-04881

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Lubeck (“Elizabeth”) and Alan Lubeck (“Alan”), (together the 

“Lubecks”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, for their complaint against Alliant Capital 

Management, LLC (“ACM”), state and allege: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. ACM, a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), when it communicated with the Lubecks to collect a consumer debt and 

made false statements and failed to provide notice as required by the FDCPA. 

2. The FDCPA broadly prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection methods, 

conduct which harasses or abuses any debtor, and the use of any false or deceptive statements in 

connection with attempts to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The FDCPA also mandates certain 

notices be given by debt collectors when communicating with consumers. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §1331 as this action arises under the FDCPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
4. Venue and personal jurisdiction in this District are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(2) because ACM conducts business in this District and because a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this District.

PARTIES

5. Elizabeth and Alan are each a natural person who reside in Chicago, Illinois.

6. ACM is a New York limited liability company having its principal place of business 

at 210 John Glenn Drive, Suite 10, Amherst, New York.

7. ACM is registered to do business in Illinois and has a registered agent located in 

Illinois.

8. Elizabeth and Alan are each a “consumer” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) 

because each is a natural person from whom ACM communicated with to collect a debt allegedly 

incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Here, the alleged debt is a personal loan 

originated by Marlette Funding d/b/a Best Egg (“Marlette”).

9. ACM is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCA, 15 U.S.C. §1692(a)(6) because 

it regularly collects debts owed to others and is engaged in the business of collecting debts on 

behalf of others. 

10. ACM regularly uses the mail to collect or attempt to collect debts on behalf of 

others.

BACKGROUND FACTS

11. On November 17, 2014, Elizabeth is alleged to have incurred a debt for a personal 

loan extended to her by Marlette.

12. Alan was never a signatory on the loan or obligated to repay it.

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
13. By letter dated August 6, 2020, Marlette advised Elizabeth that it had sold the 

subject debt to United Holding Group (“UHG”). A true and correct copy of this letter is attached 

as Exhibit 1.

14. On August 7, 2020 Elizabeth received a telephone call made by ACM to her cellular 

phone number having the last three digits of 724. The caller identified themselves as ACM and 

indicated that ACM was calling about a debt owed to Marlette.

15. Also on August 7, 2020, ACM also called Alan’s cellular phone having the last 

three digits 805 at approximately 12:48 p.m.. Alan did not immediately answer the case, so the 

caller left a message for Alan stating that they were a debt collector and left a call back number of 

833-628-0094 Ext. 369. 

16. Approximately four minutes later at 12:52 p.m., Alan called ACM back at 833-628-

0094 Ext. 369 and spoke to a representative named Kaylee.

17. Kaylee asked Alan to verify Elizabeth’s address and then proceeded to give him 

information regarding Elizabeth’s debt. 

18. Specifically, Kaylee told Alan the amount of Elizabeth’s debt ($10,000), the date 

the loan was taken out (November 17, 2014), and that Elizabeth only made a few payments on the 

loan. Kaylee also advised Alan that she was calling about a debt owed to Marlette.

19. At the time that ACM made the August 7 calls to Elizabeth and Alan, Marlette did 

not own the subject debt and ACM’s statements to Elizabeth and Alan were false. The subject debt 

was owned by UHG as of August 6, 2020.

20. At no time following the August 7 calls did ACM send either Elizabeth or Alan a 

written notice containing the information mandated by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §1692g.

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
21. The FDCPA provides that, if a “debt collector” makes an “initial communication 

with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt,” the debt collector must provide 

the consumer with certain information, such as the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, 

the consumer’s right to dispute the debt and seek validation See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). This type 

of notice is commonly called a “validation notice.” Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 

410, 412 (7th Cir. 2005).

22. The FDCPA defines “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding 

a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).

23. ACM’s calls to Elizabeth and Alan are communications within the meaning of the 

FDCPA.

24. At the time that ACM communicated with Elizabeth and Alan it is alleged that 

subject debt was in default.

25. Section 1692e of the FDCPA provides in relevant part:

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:

(2) The false representation of–

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; . . 

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to

collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information

concerning a consumer. . . .

26. ACM violated section 1692e of the FDCPA during its telephone calls to Elizabeth 

and Alan by falsely representing that ACM owned the debt when in fact the debt was owned by 

UHG at that time.

27. Section 1692g of the FDCPA states as follows:

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
(a) NOTICE OF DEBT; CONTENTS 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 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.

28. ACM’s phone calls to Elizabeth and Alan on August 7, 2020 were ACM’s initial 

communications with each of them.

29. At no time after ACM’s initial communications with Elizabeth and Alan did ACM 

give either Elizabeth or Alan the notice required by section 1692g.

30. ACM violated section 1692g of the FDCPA by failing to give them the notice 

required by this section. 

31. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1), the Lubecks are entitled to recover from ACM 

actual damages.

32. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A), the Lubecks are entitled to recover from 

ACM statutory damages of up to $1,000 each.

33. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3), the Lubecks entitled to recover from ACM 

costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
WHEREFORE, the Lubecks respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter 

judgment in their favor and against ACM, as follows: 

a. Declaring that the conduct of ACM as alleged herein is unlawful and violates the 

FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692g; 

b. Awarding the Lubecks statutory damages of $1,000 each pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Awarding the Lubecks actual damages, in an amount to be proven up at a later date, 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); 

d. Awarding the Lubecks costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 

U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3); and 

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

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH LUBECK

ALAN LUBECK

 By: /s/ Rusty Payton

Rusty Payton

PAYTON LEGAL GROUP

20 North Clark Street

Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 682-5210

info@payton.legal

Arthur C. Czaja

LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR CZAJA

7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue

Niles, Illinois 60714

(847) 647-2106

arthur@czajalawoffices.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6