Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/187705787/Fabio-v-Diversified-Consultants-Inc-Complaint-FDCPA-TCPA
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 08:28:53
Document Index: 226297507

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 153', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 6801', '§ 995', '§ 427', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§1692', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 427', '§ 1746']

Fabio v Diversified Consultants Inc Complaint FDCPA TCPA | Privacy | Complaint
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadFabio v Diversified Consultants Inc Complaint FDCPA TCPAUploaded by ghostgripPrivacyComplaintCollection AgencyDamagesAttorney's Fee0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Fabio v Diversified Consultants Inc Complaint FDCPA TCPAView MoreFabio v Diversified Consultants Inc Complaint FDCPA TCPACopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 1 of 15UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN COURT FILE NO.: 13-cv-524 Jesse Fabio, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Diversified Credit, Inc. Defendant. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff is suing the Defendant debt collector because the Defendant harassed the Plaintiff for months with collection robo-calls. The Plaintiff is not the alleged debtor. 2. Defendant persistently utilized a robo caller to call the Plaintiff’s cellular telephones, violating the Plaintiff’s privacy rights afforded under federal law. 3. The United States Supreme Court has recognized a citizen’s home as “the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick," Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125 (1969), and has noted that “[p]reserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 2 of 15
tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value.” Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 471(1980). JURISDICTION 4. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), and pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 for pendent state law claims and the TCPA claims, which are predicated upon the same facts and circumstances that give rise to the federal causes of action. Injunctive relief is available pursuant to the TCPA. 5. This action arises out of Defendant’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., in its illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt. 6. Venue is proper in this District because the Defendant may be found in this District, and the acts and transactions occurred in this District. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Jesse Fabio (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person who resides in the City of Shoreview, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, and is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) or a person affected by a violation of that law.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 3 of 15
Defendant Diversified Consultants, Inc., (hereinafter “Defendant DCI”) is a Florida Corporation, registered in Wisconsin as a Foreign business corporation authorized to conduct business in Wisconsin. Defendant DCI is a national debt collection company that continuously and systematically engages in its business of collecting debts in the state of Wisconsin, with employees or agents residing in the state of Wisconsin and using telephone numbers within Wisconsin. Defendant DCI is a “debt collector” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
On or before February 18, 2013, and within one year immediately preceding the filing of this complaint, Defendant attempted to collect from Plaintiff a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), namely, his stepdaughter’s defaulted Sprint cellular telephone bill in the approximate amount of $817.58, account number XXXXX6529.
Between approximately the fall of 2012 and the present, Defendant DCI and the collectors employed by Defendant DCI repeatedly and willfully placed calls from Wisconsin to two of Plaintiff’s personal cellular telephone numbers in an effort to collect this debt, which were “communication[s]” in an attempt to collect a debt as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 4 of 15
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 11. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Plaintiff was and is a “person” as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 153(39) and a subscriber to cellular telephone services within the United States. 12. At all times relevant to this complaint, the Defendant DCI has used, controlled, and/or operated “automatic telephone dialing systems” as defined by the TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(1). Illegal Auto-Dialed Collection Calls 13. Within four years immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant DCI and its agents telephoned the Plaintiff’s cellular telephones on numerous occasions in violation of the TCPA. 14. The “caller ID” on the Plaintiff’s cellular phones indicated that the Defendant made the calls to Plaintiff from various phone numbers located in Madison, Wisconsin. (eg. 608-466-4286; 608-466-4778; 608-466-4461) 15. Without Plaintiff’s prior express consent, Defendant DCI and its collectors and agents repeatedly used an automatic telephone dialing system to call Plaintiff’s cellular telephones in an attempt to collect this debt, at least onehundred-eighty-eight (188) times. 16. All calls and messages were sent in willful violation of the TCPA and the FDCPA because Defendant never obtained the Plaintiff’s prior express
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 5 of 15
consent, and had no basis to believe that they had the Plaintiff’s prior express consent. 17. Upon good faith information and belief, Defendant used the services of a company called “Livevox” to aid them in making all or some of the calls complained of herein. 18. Upon good faith information and belief, the Defendant used their Dialogic calling equipment to aid them in making all or some of the calls complained of herein. 19. 20. 21. Plaintiff did not have any business whatsoever with Defendant. Plaintiff has never had an account related to his adult stepdaughter. Plaintiff has never co-signed on any cellular telephone account for his adult stepdaughter. 22. Plaintiff has never given out either of his cellular telephone numbers to Defendant DCI or its collectors. 23. Defendant DCI’s repeated autodialed collection calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephones, within the last four years prior to filing this complaint, were illegal third-party attempts to collect this debt in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 24. Prior to September 2012, Defendant had been sued more than five times for violations of the TCPA.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 6 of 15
Defendant DCI’s repeated autodialed collection calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephones, within the last one year prior to filing this complaint, were illegal third-party attempts to collect this debt in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692d(5), 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692b(1), 1692b(3), 1692f, and 1692f(1), amongst others. Summary
All of the above-described collection communications made to Plaintiff by Defendant DCI and other collection employees employed by Defendant DCI, were made in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to all of the above mentioned provisions, amongst others, as well as an invasion of his privacy by the use of repeated calls.
The Defendant’s actions as described herein left the Plaintiff feeling helpless and victimized, as he was unable to stop the persistent and intrusive telephoning by the Defendant.
The Defendant’s persistent autodialed calls eliminated the Plaintiff’s right to be left alone.
These autodialed collection calls disrupted his sleep when Plaintiff was sleeping after working late shifts.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 7 of 15
These persistent autodialed collection calls eliminated the peace and solitude that the Plaintiff would have otherwise had.
Defendant DCI’s actions constituted unauthorized use of, and interference with the Plaintiff’s cellular telephone service associated with the number (651) 263-0712 and (651) 263-0941 for which the Plaintiff paid money.
Plaintiff was charged money for each call that Defendant made to Plaintiff’s cellular phones. TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. US Const. amend. 7. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant DCI and its agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every one of the above-cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., with respect to Plaintiff.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 8 of 15
As a result of Defendant DCI’s violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from Defendant DCI herein. COUNT II.
VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein. 38. Within the one year period immediately preceding this action, the Defendant DCI made numerous calls to the Plaintiff’s cellular telephones service using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), and 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 (a)(1)(iii). 39. The acts and or omissions of Defendant DCI at all times material and relevant hereto, as described in this complaint, were done unfairly, unlawfully, intentionally, deceptively and absent bona fide error, lawful right, legal defense, legal justification or legal excuse.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 9 of 15
As a causally-direct and legally proximate result of the above violations of the TCPA and the C.F.R., Defendant DCI at all times material and relevant hereto, as described in this Complaint, caused Plaintiff to sustain damages.
Defendant DCI did not have the prior express consent of Plaintiff to use an automatic telephone dialing system to call the Plaintiff’s cellular telephones.
Under the 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B), the Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages under the TCPA of $500.00 per telephone call made to Plaintiff.
Defendant DCI willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA, and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to $1,500.00 per telephone call made to the Plaintiff pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3).
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant DCI from contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephones using an automated dialing system pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(a). COUNT III. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 10 of 15
Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings: Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (emphasis added).
Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors albeit without a private right of action, when it stated as part of its purposes: It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality information. 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) (emphasis added). of those customers’ nonpublic personal
Defendant DCI and/or its agents intentionally and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 11 of 15
or affairs of this Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt from the wrong person, and calling his cellular telephones, and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy. 49. Defendant DCI and its agents intentionally and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy. 50. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs. 51. The conduct of Defendant DCI and its agents, in engaging in the abovedescribed illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by Defendant which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position. 52. 53. Wisconsin has recognized the right to privacy in Wis. Stat. § 995.50. As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual and punitive damages from Defendant DCI in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT IV. VIOLATIONS OF THE WISCONSIN CONSUMER ACT: WIS. STAT. CHAPTER 427 54. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-53 above.
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 12 of 15
The debt that the Defendant was attempting to collect occurred based upon the consumer credit transaction between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s step-daughter as described herein.
The amount that the Defendant was attempting to collect constitutes a “claim” as that term is defined at Wis. State. 427.103(1).
Defendant’s conduct violated the debt collection provisions of the Wisconsin Consumer Act as set forth in Chapter 427 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Defendant’s conduct violated 427.104(1)(h) in that the Defendant’s conduct as described herein could reasonably be expected to harass a person related to the customer in which the Defendant was attempting to collect.
As a result of the defendant’s illegal conduct, Nelson has suffered emotional distress and mental anguish.
Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages (if the evidence at trial so warrants), actual costs, and attorneys’ fees, under Wis. Stat. § 427.105. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant
DCI as follows:
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 13 of 15
COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. • for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1) against Defendant DCI and for Plaintiff; • for an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(2)(A) against Defendant DCI and for Plaintiff; • for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant DCI and for Plaintiff; COUNT II. VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. • for an award of statutory damages of $500.00 per call pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B) against Defendant DCI and for Plaintiff; • for an award of treble damages of $1,500.00 per call pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3) against Defendant DCI and for Plaintiff; • for an injunction prohibiting Defendant DCI from contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephones using an automated dialing system pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(a).
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 14 of 15
COUNT III. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION • for an award of actual damages from Defendant DCI for the emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional and/or negligent invasions of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial and for Plaintiff; COUNT IV. VIOLATIONS OF THE WISCONSIN CONSUMER ACT: WIS. STAT. CHAPTER 427 • for an award of actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages (if the evidence at trial so warrants), actual costs, and attorneys’ fees, under Wis. Stat. § 427.105. • for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 9, 2013 BARRY, SLADE, WHEATON & HELWIG, LLC By: s/Peter F. Barry Peter F. Barry, Esq. Attorney I.D.#0266577 2701 University Ave. SE, Suite 209 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414-3236 Telephone: (612) 379-8800 pbarry@lawpoint.com pfb/ra Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case: 3:13-cv-00524-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 07/23/13 Page 15 of 15
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATION S TAT E O F M I N N E S O TA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Plaintiff Jesse Fabio, having first been duly sworn and upon oath, veriﬁes, certiﬁes, and declares as follows: 1. I am a Plaintiff in this civil proceeding. 2. I have read the above-entitled civil Complaint prepared by my attorneys and I believe that all of the facts contained in it are true, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry. 3. I believe that this civil Complaint is well grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modiﬁcation, or reversal of existing law. 4. I believe that this civil Complaint is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass any Defendant(s), cause unnecessary delay to any Defendant(s), or create a needless increase in the cost of litigation to any Defendant(s), named in the Complaint. 5. I have ﬁled this civil Complaint in good faith and solely for the purposes set forth in it. 6. Each and every exhibit I have provided to my attorneys which has been attached to this Complaint is a true and correct copy of the original. 7. Except for clearly indicated redactions made by my attorneys where appropriate, I have not altered, changed, modiﬁed, or fabricated these exhibits, except that some of the attached exhibits may contain some of my own handwritten notations. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing^slmfe and correct. Executed on July 9,2013
Documents Similar To Fabio v Diversified Consultants Inc Complaint FDCPA TCPASkip carouselBullard v Convergent Outsourcing Inc ER Solutions Inc FDPCA TCPA Complaint MinnesotaHicks v Client Services Summary JudgementFellig Reizes Stellar Recovery Inc Class Action Complaint FDCPA TCPAHarris TCPA Plaintiff's Request for ProductionClass Action TCPA Complaint Tang v Stellar Recovery Inc LawsuitEquitable Tolling of the Statute of Limitations in CaliforniaFDCPA Violatiuons Checklist and Cheat SheetPrivacy Bill 2012CONSTI2REVIEW[1].docConsti 2 Review- Montejo LecturesScheeler v. NJ Dep't of Educ., 2014-125Martineau v Credit Bureau of Napa County Chase Receivables FDCPA Complaint.pdfAnnulment of TitleEUFEMIO MUMAR v. CANUTO DIEPARINE G.R. No. L-5580 December 27, 1910.pdfDELANEY DEVELOPMENT, INC. et al v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY ComplaintMTD YachtThe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
1 Debt ValidationLIBERI v TAITZ (C.D. CA) -.405.0 - ORDER by Judge Andrew J. GuilfordFinal Final Paper Ethics SJS v Dangerous Drugs BoardDeckers v. Target - ComplaintMumar vs DieparineAnswerRyan v Ryan Protecting Privacy362-1311-1-PB.pdfculp 052010July9_DigEconSubmissionFinalBHSVMA v. SquareplayDocuments About PrivacySkip carouselA.HRC.29.32_AEVCode of EthicsEthereum- The Road AheadMarkey Car Security ReportNSA review board's reportApple Comments on Federal Automated Vehicles PolicyEthereum Paper Executive Summary Supreme Court's decision on the cybercrime lawResponses for GuardianPrivacy in Cloud ComputingPersonal Social Engagement Guidelines 2.0Forrest Ruling 2Wyden Speech on NSA Domestic Surveillance at Center for American ProgressApple Brief Of Twitter And Other Web CompaniesARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY - Opinion 5/2009 on online social networkingResearch Involving Human Biological MaterialsPrivacy and Missing Persons after Natural DisastersZDF transcriptWhite House issues statement against CISPASimplified Platform Developer Principles & PoliciesTweeting Up a StormUSA Freedom Act Letter 10-31-13.pdfCampbell v FacebookEditorial GuidelinesAmazon Alexa Free SpeechAV Policy Guidance PDFVAIQ 7693334 -- VBA Letter 20-16-01 - EFolder AccessInnovation and the Earned BrandProtecting Consumers in the Digital Currency EconomyWikileaks Twitter JudgementMore From ghostgripSkip carouselUrspringer v Pizza Luce ADA Discrimination ComplaintUnilever Hellman's Survey Questions - Hampton CreekMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPA Complaint Debt CollectorNicolai v NCO Financial Systems Inc Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Erstad RiemerPresqriber LLC v Practice Fusion Inc Motion to DismissPresqriber v Practice Fusion Patent ComplaintPresqriber v Practice Fusion Motion to DismissPratt v NCO Financial Systems FDCPA Complaint MinnesotaReflections of a Career Prosecutor James BackstromMinneapolis Police Officers Federation Contract 2012Scheffler v NCO Financial Systems Inc FDCPA ComplaintConopco Unilever Hellman's v Hampton Creek Just Mayo ComplaintChase Receivables Chase Payment CenterDeclaration of Michael J Wood Chase ReceivablesBien v Stellar Recovery Inc Complaint Caller ID SpoofingChase Receivables Collection Agency NoticeAcosta v Credit Bureau of Napa County Chase ReceivablesHellmans v Just Mayo - Declaration of Michael MazisDeclaration of Ryu Yokoi Hellman's - Unilever v Hampton Creek Just MayoDobson Chase Receivables Robert ArleoDiabate v University of Minnesota ComplaintJay Clifton Kolls DPPA ExhibitsKSTP Jay Kolls Profile PointergateJay Clifton Kolls v City of Edina Withdrawal of CounselMotion for Class Certification Acosta v Credit Bureau of Napa CountyMitchell v Chase Receivables Inc FDCPAGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Appendix ECF 17-2 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Amended Complaint ECF 17 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Apr 3 Letter ECF 43 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaGrazzini-Rucki v Knutson Order ECF 44 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald Minnesota