1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NATHANIEL PHILLIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VALOR INTELLIGENT PROCESSING, 

LLC, 

Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION 

COMPLAINT 1:20-cv-05040 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES NATHANIEL PHILLIPS (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned 

attorney, complaining as to the conduct of VALOR INTELLIGENT PROCESSING, LLC 

(“Defendant”) as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”) under 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 

under 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. for Defendant’s unlawful conduct. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C §1692, 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337, as the 

action arises under the laws of the United States. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as Plaintiff resides in this District 

and all of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is a consumer, over 18 years of age, and is domiciled in Chicago, Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
2 

5. Defendant is a third party debt collection service with its principal place of business located 

at 6703 Southpoint Drive North, Suite 300, Jacksonville, Florida 32216. Defendant regularly 

collects, or attempts to collect, defaulted debts from consumers located within the State of Illinois. 

6. 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

7. In or around July 2020, Defendant began placing collection calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone number (312) XXX-6142, in an attempt to collect on an alleged debt unknown to 

Plaintiff (“alleged debt”). 

8. Plaintiff was the sole subscriber, owner, possessor, and operator of the cellular telephone 

ending in 6142. 

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant acquired the rights to collect upon the alleged debt 

after it went into default. 

10. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff answered a call from Defendant and spoke with a representative. 

In this call, Defendant’s representative informed Plaintiff that Defendant was seeking to collect on 

a debt. Subsequently, during the call, Plaintiff informed Defendant’s representative that he did not 

wish to receive any further calls. 

11. Despite Plaintiff’s request for the calls stop, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff on his 

cellular phone. 

12. Some examples of calls Defendant made to Plaintiff include, but are not limited to, the 

following dates and times: July 22, 2020 at 11:10 a.m., July 24, 2020 at 10.27 a.m., July 24, 2020 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
3 

at 3:30 p.m., July 27, 2020 at 9:56 a.m., July 27, 2020 at 4:10 p.m., July 28, 2020 at 1:58 p.m., 

July 28, 2020 at 4:40 p.m., and July 30, 2020 at 3:16 p.m. 

13. On July 31, 2020, Plaintiff answered another call from Defendant from a male 

representative. Plaintiff informed Defendant’s representative that he had already informed 

Defendant that he did not wish to receive any further calls. However, Defendant’s representative 

responded something to the effect of “I must verify that this is Nathaniel Phillips because you have 

a debt that is owed and you must pay it.” Plaintiff then asked Defendant the name of his firm to 

which Defendant’s representative responded “Valor Intel.” 

14. During the call, Plaintiff then asked Defendant, again, not to call him but also advised that 

Plaintiff would be open to receiving either emails or regular mail from Defendant so that Plaintiff 

can fully review the matter. Defendant’s representative agreed to sending emails or using regular 

mail rather than continuing to call Plaintiff on his cellular phone. Defendant’s representative 

finished the call by stating something to the effect of “You have a debt from QVC1

 and I want to 

know how you would like to pay it.” In response, Plaintiff advised Defendant that he has no 

knowledge of any debt owed to QVC. 

15. Despite the above second request for the calls to cease, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff 

on his cellular phone. 

16. Other examples of calls Defendant made to Plaintiff include, but are not limited to, the 

following dates and times: August 3, 2020 at 2:28 p.m., August 4, 2020 at 11:20 a.m., August 5, 

2020 at 11:17 a.m., and August 5, 2020 at 4:35 p.m. 

17. On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff answered yet another call from Defendant. This time, Plaintiff 

spoke with a female representative. Plaintiff again explained that he had already requested that he 

                                                            

1 QVC, which stands for Quality Value Convenience, is an American free‐to‐air television network, and flagship

shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping.  QVC is owned by Qurate Retail Group.   

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
4 

no longer receive calls from Defendant, but Defendant’s representative insisted on wanting to 

know whether she was speaking with Plaintiff. Plaintiff then inquired as to the purpose of the call 

to which Defendant’s representative stated “It is a personal matter, and I need to speak with 

Nathaniel Phillips.” Plaintiff responded that if it was something of importance, why not put it in 

the mail to the attention of “Nathaniel Phillips” but Defendant’s representative only responded 

that she would call back at another time. 

18. True to its word, Defendant continued with the barrage of calls. After no less than three 

requests for the calls to stop, additional examples of calls made by Defendant to Plaintiff’s cellular 

phone include, but are not limited to, the following dates and times: August 7, 2020 at 1:55 p.m., 

August 10, 2020 at 2:35 p.m., August 11, 2020 at 3:19 p.m., August 12, 2020 at 3:43 p.m., and 

August 13, 2020 at 3:07 p.m. 

19. At no time did Plaintiff ever provide his cellular telephone number to Defendant or 

otherwise consent to receiving calls from Defendant. 

20. Nonetheless, Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, dozens and dozens of harassing 

phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

21. In the calls that Plaintiff did answer, Plaintiff was greeted by a noticeable period of “dead 

air” while Defendant’s automated telephone system attempted to connect Plaintiff to a live agent. 

22. Specifically, there would be an approximate 3-second pause between the time Plaintiff said 

“hello,” and the time that a live agent came on the line. 

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant placed its calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

using an automated telephone dialing system, a telephone dialing system commonly used in the 

debt collection industry to collect defaulted debts. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
5 

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s telephone dialing system may have the capacity 

to store, and to randomly or sequentially generate consumers’ cellular phone numbers, and to dial 

those numbers. 

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant might have called Plaintiff on his cellular phone 

using a telephone dialing system that had the capacity to randomly or sequentially generate phone 

numbers. 

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant may have the means to identify the subscriber of 

the telephone number that is stored or produced once that number has been stored or produced. 

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s telephone dialing system may have the capacity 

to make calls to consumers’ cellular phone numbers using an artificial or prerecorded voice. 

28. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s telephone dialing system might have made calls 

to Plaintiff using an artificial or prerecorded voice. 

29. Defendant has used the phone numbers (331) 321-7529, (331) 321-7575, and (331) 321-

7608 to call Plaintiff’s cellular phone, but upon information and belief, Defendant uses multiple 

other phone number to contact Plaintiff. 

30. Defendant’s false representation and misleading conduct has severely disrupted Plaintiff’s 

daily life and general well-being. 

31. Defendant’s illegal collection activities have caused Plaintiff actual harm, including but 

not limited to, emotional distress, mental anguish, and anxiety. 

32. Frustrated with the barrage of never-ending calls and concerned about the violations of his 

rights and invasion of his privacy, Plaintiff was forced to seek the assistance of counsel to file this 

action to compel Defendant to cease its unlawful conduct. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
6 

COUNT I - VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 

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

34. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3) of the FDCPA. 

35. The alleged debt is a “debt” as defined by FDCPA §1692a(5) as it arises out of a transaction 

due or asserted to be owed or due to another for personal, family, or household purposes. 

36. Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by §1692a(6) of the FDCPA, because it regularly 

use the mail and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, delinquent consumer accounts. 

37. Moreover, Defendant is a “debt collector” because it acquired rights to the alleged debt 

after it was in default. 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). 

38. Defendant used a telephone to attempt to collect the alleged debt and, as such, engaged in 

“communications” as defined in FDCPA §1692a(2). 

39. Defendant’s communications to Plaintiff were made in connection with the collection of 

the alleged debt. 

40. Defendant violated §§1692c, 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA. 

a. Violations of FDCPA §1692c 

41. Defendant violated §1692c(a)(1) when it continuously called Plaintiff after being notified 

to stop. This repeated behavior of continuously and systematically calling Plaintiff’s cellular phone 

over and over (all times known to be inconvenient to Plaintiff) after he demanded that it cease 

contacting him was harassing and abusive. Even after being told to stop contacting him, Defendant 

continued its onslaught of phone calls with the specific goal of coercing Plaintiff into paying the 

alleged debt. 

42. Furthermore, the high volume of calls shows that Defendant willfully ignored Plaintiff’s 

pleas with the goal of annoying and harassing him into submission. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
7 

43. Defendant was notified by Plaintiff that its calls were not welcomed and to communicate 

in writing. As such, Defendant knew its conduct was inconvenient, unwanted, and distressing to 

him. 

b. Violations of FDCPA §1692d

44. Defendant violated §1692d by engaging in abusive, harassing, and oppressive conduct by 

relentlessly calling Plaintiff’s cellular phone seeking payment on the alleged debt. Moreover, 

Defendant continued placing the relentless calls after Plaintiff put Defendant on notice that its calls 

were not welcome on several occasions. 

45. Defendant violated §1692d(5) by causing Plaintiff’s cellular phone to ring repeatedly and 

continuously in an attempt to engage Plaintiff in conversations regarding the collection of the 

alleged debt with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendant continued 

to place these calls after Plaintiff repeatedly informed Defendant its calls were no longer welcome. 

Specifically, Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, numerous harassing phone calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from July 2020 through the present, without his prior consent. 

 c. Violations of FDCPA §1692e 

46. The FDCPA declares it a violation to make a false representation of the character, amount, 

or legal status of any debt. 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692e (2)(A). Indeed, merely dunning a person who is 

not legally obligated to pay the debt makes the debt collector liable under that statute as a matter 

of law because it is, ipso facto, a false representation about the status or character of the debt.” See 

Owens v. Howe, No. 1:04-CV-152, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22728 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 8, 2004). 

47. Defendant violated §1692e by using false, deceptive, and misleading representation in 

connection to collection of the alleged debt. It was misleading for Defendant to continue 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
8 

contacting Plaintiff seeking to collect on the alleged debt after Plaintiff specifically told Defendant 

that he had no such knowledge of any debt owed to QVC and to contact him in writing. 

48. Furthermore, Defendant violated §1692e(10) by using false representation and deceptive 

means in connection to the collection of the alleged debt. Defendant falsely represented that it 

could continue to call Plaintiff regarding the alleged debt even after he made it clear that the debt 

did not belong to him. Defendant’s actions were an attempt to dragoon Plaintiff into paying a debt 

that did not belong to him. 

d. Violations of FDCPA § 1692f 

49. Defendant violated §1692f by using unfair and unconscionable means in attempting to 

collect on the alleged debt. 

50. Specifically, Defendant unfairly attempted to collect on the alleged debt when Plaintiff did 

not owe the alleged debt. Defendant’s unconscionable conduct was employed in order to trick 

Plaintiff into providing information he did not wish to provide and/or make payment on the alleged 

debt. 

51. Moreover, Defendant’s actions in calling Plaintiff dozens and dozens of times especially 

after he asked for the calls to stop on no less than three occasions, is unconscionable. 

52. As an experienced debt collector, Defendant knew or should have known the ramifications 

of collecting on an alleged debt by using a false premise and incessant harassing phone calls to the 

cellular phones of consumers. 

53. Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically attempts to collect debts through 

harassing conduct and has no procedures in place to assure compliance with the FDCPA. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
9 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NATHANIEL PHILLIPS, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment is his favor as follows: 

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

aforementioned bodies of law; 

b. Awarding Plaintiff statutory damages of $1,000.00 as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(2)(A); 

c. Awarding Plaintiff actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trail, as provided 

under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(1); 

d. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C. 

§1692k(a)(3); 

e. Enjoining Defendant from further contacting Plaintiff seeking payment of the alleged 

debt; and 

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

COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

54. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set forth herein. 

55. Defendant placed or caused to be placed non-emergency calls, including but not limited to 

the calls referenced above, to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing 

system (“ATDS”) without his prior consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii). 

56. The TCPA defines 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.” 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1). 

57. Upon information and belief, based on the lack of prompt human response during the phone 

calls in which Plaintiff answered, Defendant used an automated dialing system to place calls to 

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
10 

58. Upon information and belief, the ATDS employed by Defendant transfers the call to a live 

agent once a human voice is detected, thus resulting in a pause after the called party speaks into 

the phone. 

59. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s phone system has the capacity to store telephone 

numbers to be called, and the capacity to dial those numbers using a random or sequential number 

generator. 

60. There would be no reason for Defendant to continue to contact Plaintiff, especially after 

having been notified to cease all telephone communications. Yet, Defendant’s ATDS continued to 

keep Plaintiff’s phone number stored, causing its system to auto-dial the number dozens of times 

thereafter. 

61. Defendant violated the TCPA by placing numerous phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone from July 2020 through the present day, using an ATDS and without his prior consent. 

62. As pled above, Plaintiff was severely harmed by Defendant’s collection calls to his cellular 

phone. 

63. Upon information and belief, Defendant has no system in place to document and archive 

whether it has consent to contact consumers on their cellular phones. 

64. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew its collection practices were in violation of 

the TCPA, yet continued to employ them to increase profits at Plaintiff’s expense. 

65. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s phone system can store telephone numbers to be 

called, using a random or sequential number generator, which it may very well have used to call 

Plaintiff on his cellular phone. 

66. The calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff were regarding business activities and not for 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
11 

67. Defendant, through its agents, vendors, representatives, subsidiaries, and/or employees 

acting within the scope of their authority acted intentionally in violation of 47 U.S.C. 

§227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

68. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(B), Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for a minimum of 

$500 per call. Moreover, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C), 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). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NATHANIEL PHILLIPS, respectfully requests that this 

Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor as follows: 

a. Declare Defendant’s phone calls to Plaintiff to be violations of the TCPA; 

b. Award Plaintiff damages of at least $500 per phone call and treble damages pursuant to 47 

U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B)&(C); 

c. Enjoining Defendant from further communicating with Plaintiff; and 

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

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

Dated: August 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Majdi Y. Hijazin 

 

Majdi Y. Hijazin, Of Counsel

 Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 

 Lombard, IL 60148 

 Phone: (630) 575-8181 

 Fax: (630) 575-8188 

 mhijazin@hijazinlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-05040 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/27/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11