FDCPA Violation Complaint (Illinois)

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF FDCPA, ICFA, AND ICAA — ILLINOIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Parties
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I — Violation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e
7. Count II — Violation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f
8. Count III — Violation of FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g
9. Count IV — Violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2
10. Count V — Violation of Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/9
11. Damages and Prayer for Relief
12. Demand for Trial by Jury
13. Signature and Verification
14. Illinois Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[NORTHERN / CENTRAL / SOUTHERN] DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

[EASTERN / WESTERN] DIVISION

Civil Action No. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. This is a consumer-protection action brought by Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] against Defendant(s) for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"); the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. ("ICFA"); and the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq. ("ICAA").

2.2. The FDCPA was enacted "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). Congress recognized that abusive debt collection causes "personal bankruptcies, marital instability, loss of jobs, and invasions of individual privacy." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a).

2.3. As described below, Defendant engaged in false, deceptive, unfair, and harassing conduct in attempting to collect an alleged consumer debt from Plaintiff, in violation of federal and Illinois law.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the FDCPA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

3.2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Illinois state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the state-law claims arise out of the same case or controversy.

3.3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and Plaintiff resides in [COUNTY] County, Illinois.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is a natural person residing in [CITY, COUNTY], Illinois, and is a "consumer" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

4.2. Defendant [DEBT COLLECTOR NAME] is a [corporation / LLC / partnership] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Defendant regularly collects, or attempts to collect, debts owed or asserted to be owed or due another, and is a "debt collector" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

4.3. Defendant [CREDITOR NAME] is a [corporation / LLC] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS] and was the original creditor or assignee of the alleged debt at issue.

4.4. The alleged debt is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) because it is an obligation of a consumer arising out of a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5.1. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff allegedly incurred a [CREDIT CARD / MEDICAL / UTILITY / OTHER] consumer debt in the approximate amount of $[AMOUNT] with [ORIGINAL CREDITOR] (the "Alleged Debt").

5.2. On or about [DATE], Defendant [DEBT COLLECTOR] began collection efforts against Plaintiff for the Alleged Debt.

5.3. On or about [DATE], Defendant sent Plaintiff a written communication (the "Initial Letter") that [DESCRIBE — e.g., demanded immediate payment of $[AMOUNT], threatened legal action, misstated the amount of the debt, failed to identify the current creditor]. A true and correct copy of the Initial Letter is attached as Exhibit A.

5.4. On or about [DATE], Defendant placed [NUMBER] telephone calls to Plaintiff at [PHONE NUMBER] between the hours of [TIME] and [TIME]. During those calls, Defendant [DESCRIBE — e.g., threatened arrest, used profane language, refused to identify itself, called Plaintiff's workplace after being told not to, contacted third parties about the debt].

5.5. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff sent Defendant a written notice disputing the Alleged Debt and requesting validation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Despite this written dispute, Defendant [continued collection efforts / failed to provide validation / reported the disputed debt to consumer reporting agencies without noting the dispute].

5.6. On information and belief, Defendant is not licensed as a collection agency in Illinois as required by 225 ILCS 425/14, or alternatively, Defendant has violated the conduct provisions of the ICAA.

5.7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered [ACTUAL DAMAGES — e.g., emotional distress, anxiety, sleeplessness, embarrassment, out-of-pocket costs to dispute the debt, harm to credit, lost time from work].

6. COUNT I — VIOLATION OF FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e

6.1. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 5.7 as if fully set forth herein.

6.2. Section 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt."

6.3. Defendant violated § 1692e by, among other things:

• Falsely representing the [character / amount / legal status] of the Alleged Debt (§ 1692e(2)(A));
• Threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken (§ 1692e(5));
• Using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt (§ 1692e(10));
• Failing to disclose that the communication is from a debt collector (§ 1692e(11)).

6.4. Defendant's conduct would deceive an "unsophisticated consumer," the standard applied in the Seventh Circuit. Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 27 F.3d 1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994).

7. COUNT II — VIOLATION OF FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f

7.1. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 6.4 as if fully set forth herein.

7.2. Section 1692f prohibits the use of "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt."

7.3. Defendant violated § 1692f by, among other things:

• Attempting to collect amounts not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law (§ 1692f(1));
• [ADDITIONAL CONDUCT — e.g., communicating by postcard, using deceptive symbols on envelopes].

8. COUNT III — VIOLATION OF FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g

8.1. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 7.3 as if fully set forth herein.

8.2. Section 1692g(a) requires a debt collector, within five days of an initial communication, to provide written notice containing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a statement of the consumer's right to dispute and request validation.

8.3. Section 1692g(b) requires that, upon a timely written dispute, the debt collector cease collection efforts until verification is obtained and mailed to the consumer.

8.4. Defendant violated § 1692g by [failing to provide the required validation notice / continuing collection activity after receiving Plaintiff's written dispute / failing to obtain and mail verification].

9. COUNT IV — VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, 815 ILCS 505/2

9.1. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 8.4 as if fully set forth herein.

9.2. ICFA prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in the conduct of any trade or commerce. 815 ILCS 505/2.

9.3. Defendant's conduct in attempting to collect the Alleged Debt occurred in the course of trade or commerce within the meaning of 815 ILCS 505/1(f).

9.4. Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on its deceptive representations regarding the amount, character, and legal status of the Alleged Debt.

9.5. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's deceptive acts, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including out-of-pocket costs, harm to credit, emotional distress, and loss of time. See Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 199 (2005) (private ICFA action requires actual damage proximately caused by the deception).

9.6. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, attorney's fees, costs, and, in the Court's discretion, punitive damages.

10. COUNT V — VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS COLLECTION AGENCY ACT, 225 ILCS 425/9

10.1. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1.1 through 9.6 as if fully set forth herein.

10.2. The ICAA prohibits collection agencies from engaging in enumerated unfair conduct, including (without limitation) using profane language, threatening unlawful action, communicating with third parties about the debt, misrepresenting the amount of the debt, and collecting unauthorized fees. 225 ILCS 425/9.

10.3. [If applicable] On information and belief, Defendant operates as a collection agency in Illinois without the license required by 225 ILCS 425/4 and 225 ILCS 425/14.

10.4. Defendant's conduct described above constitutes one or more violations of 225 ILCS 425/9.

10.5. Violations of the ICAA also constitute per se violations of the ICFA. See Sherman v. Field Clinic, 74 Ill. App. 3d 21 (1st Dist. 1979).

11. DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant(s) for:

• A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• B. Statutory damages of up to $1,000.00 per Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);
• C. Punitive damages under 815 ILCS 505/10a;
• D. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and 815 ILCS 505/10a(c);
• E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• F. Injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from further unlawful collection activity;
• G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

12. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 (or, if filed in state court, 735 ILCS 5/2-1105).

13. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION

Date: [DATE]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Illinois ARDC No. [####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, IL ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

VERIFICATION (if filed in Illinois state court)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn, state that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the matters stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

Subscribed and sworn before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public — State of Illinois

(My Commission Expires: [_______________])

14. ILLINOIS PRACTICE NOTES

• FDCPA statute of limitations. One year from the date of the violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Each communication can be a discrete violation; consider whether discovery rule arguments apply.
• FDCPA damages. Actual damages plus statutory damages up to $1,000 per plaintiff (not per violation), plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Class actions: lesser of $500,000 or 1% of net worth. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B).
• ICFA proximate cause. Avery v. State Farm, 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005), is controlling. A private ICFA plaintiff must plead and prove that the deceptive act proximately caused actual damages — not merely that the defendant engaged in deception. Tie each damage element to a specific deceptive act.
• ICFA fee shifting. 815 ILCS 505/10a(c) authorizes attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Courts may award fees to defendants only on a finding of bad faith.
• ICFA punitive damages. Available in private ICFA actions in the court's discretion. See Roboserve, Ltd. v. Kato Kagaku Co., Ltd., 121 F.3d 1027, 1037 (7th Cir. 1997).
• ICAA unlicensed collection. Verify the agency's license at idfpr.illinois.gov before filing. Operating without an Illinois license is a per se violation actionable under the ICFA.
• Forum choice. Federal court is generally preferred for FDCPA-led cases due to settled federal precedent and fee-shifting practice. State court (Circuit Court of Cook County or other county of plaintiff's residence) is preferred when ICFA/ICAA claims dominate or class certification under 735 ILCS 5/2-801 is sought.
• Class actions. Plaintiffs frequently certify FDCPA classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Coordinate with the FDCPA cap at 1% of net worth or $500,000.
• Pleading specificity. ICFA fraud-based claims may be subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading. Plead the "who, what, when, where, how" of each deceptive act.
• Consumer Installment Loan Act overlay. If the debt arose from a regulated installment loan, consider 205 ILCS 670/15 and related provisions for additional licensing-and-disclosure violations.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41/subchapter-V
• 815 ILCS 505/ (Illinois Consumer Fraud Act) — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2356&ChapterID=67
• 225 ILCS 425/ (Illinois Collection Agency Act) — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1355&ChapterID=24
• 205 ILCS 670/ (Consumer Installment Loan Act) — https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1252&ChapterID=20
• Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) — https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2005/91494.html
• Gammon v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 27 F.3d 1254 (7th Cir. 1994)
• Sherman v. Field Clinic, 74 Ill. App. 3d 21 (1st Dist. 1979)
• CFPB Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 — https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1006/
• IDFPR Collection Agency Licensee Search — https://idfpr.illinois.gov/

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Illinois must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.