FDCPA Violation Complaint (Michigan)

COMPLAINT — FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT AND MICHIGAN STATUTORY VIOLATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Parties
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I — Violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692g
7. Count II — Violation of the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA)
8. Count III — Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Pleaded in the Alternative)
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Demand for Trial by Jury
12. Signature and Service Blocks
13. Verification
14. Michigan Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[EASTERN / WESTERN] DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN — [SOUTHERN / NORTHERN] DIVISION

Case No. [________________________________]

Hon. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. This is an action for actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs brought by Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME], an individual consumer, against Defendant(s) for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p; the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act ("MRCPA"), MCL §§ 339.901–339.920; and, in the alternative, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), MCL §§ 445.901–445.922.

2.2. Defendant(s) engaged in abusive, deceptive, and unfair collection practices in connection with an alleged consumer debt, causing Plaintiff actual harm and entitling Plaintiff to statutory and other relief.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. This Court has federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d).

3.2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim.

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 claim occurred in this District and Plaintiff resides in this District.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is a natural person residing in [CITY, COUNTY], Michigan, and is a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) and MCL § 339.901(f).

4.2. Defendant [COLLECTION AGENCY NAME] is a [STATE OF INCORPORATION] corporation with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], and is a "debt collector" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). On information and belief, Defendant is or was required to hold a Michigan collection-agency license under MCL § 339.904.

4.3. Defendant [INDIVIDUAL COLLECTOR NAME] is, on information and belief, an employee or agent of Defendant [COLLECTION AGENCY NAME] who personally engaged in the conduct alleged herein.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5.1. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to [ORIGINAL CREDITOR] in connection with [CONSUMER TRANSACTION — e.g., credit card, medical services, personal loan] (the "Alleged Debt").

5.2. The Alleged Debt was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and is therefore a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

5.3. On or about [DATE], the Alleged Debt was [placed for collection / sold / assigned] to Defendant [COLLECTION AGENCY NAME].

5.4. Beginning on or about [DATE], Defendant(s) initiated communications with Plaintiff to collect the Alleged Debt, including [describe communications: phone calls, letters, text messages, emails, contacts with third parties, credit-bureau reporting, etc.].

5.5. Defendant(s) committed one or more of the following acts in connection with the collection of the Alleged Debt (check all that apply):

• ☐ Communicated with Plaintiff at unusual or inconvenient times or places (before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time) — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1).
• ☐ Communicated with Plaintiff at Plaintiff's place of employment after being notified that the employer prohibits such communication — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3).
• ☐ Continued to communicate directly with Plaintiff after Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that Plaintiff was represented by counsel — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2).
• ☐ Continued communications after Plaintiff sent a written cease-communication request — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).
• ☐ Communicated with third parties about the Alleged Debt other than as permitted — 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).
• ☐ Used obscene, profane, or harassing language — 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(2).
• ☐ Caused Plaintiff's telephone to ring repeatedly with intent to harass — 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5).
• ☐ Falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of the Alleged Debt — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).
• ☐ Falsely represented or implied that nonpayment would result in arrest, garnishment, or seizure of property absent legal authority and intent to take such action — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(4).
• ☐ Threatened to take action that cannot legally be taken or that was not intended to be taken — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).
• ☐ Falsely represented or implied that Defendant is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(1).
• ☐ Used any false representation or deceptive means to collect the Alleged Debt — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).
• ☐ Failed to disclose in the initial communication that Defendant is a debt collector and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose — 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11).
• ☐ Failed to provide the validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) within five days of the initial communication.
• ☐ Continued collection activity after Plaintiff disputed the debt in writing within thirty (30) days, without first obtaining and mailing verification — 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
• ☐ Used unfair or unconscionable means to collect the Alleged Debt, including collecting amounts not authorized by the agreement or by law — 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

5.6. Specifically, on [DATE(S)], Defendant(s) [describe the specific incident(s) in narrative detail — verbatim language used, identity of collector, witnesses, dates and times of calls, text of letters, etc.].

5.7. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages including, without limitation, emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, lost time, telephone charges, and [other specific harms].

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

6.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 5.7.

6.2. Defendant [COLLECTION AGENCY NAME] is a "debt collector" engaged in the collection of "debts" from a "consumer" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a.

6.3. Defendant violated the FDCPA in the particulars identified in Paragraph 5.5, including without limitation 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c, 1692d, 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g.

6.4. Defendant's conduct would deceive or mislead the "least sophisticated consumer" applied by the Sixth Circuit (Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992)).

6.5. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000, costs, and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a).

7. COUNT II — VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN REGULATION OF COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (MRCPA)

7.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 5.7.

7.2. Defendant is a "collection agency" required to be licensed under MCL § 339.904 and is subject to Article 9 of the Michigan Occupational Code, MCL §§ 339.901–339.920.

7.3. Defendant violated MCL § 339.915 by, inter alia, [list specific subsection violations — e.g., (a) communicating with debtor in misleading manner; (e) misrepresenting in any communication the legal status of a legal action; (f) misrepresenting the legal rights of the creditor or debtor; (n) using a harassing, oppressive, or abusive method to collect a debt].

7.4. Defendant's violations were willful within the meaning of MCL § 339.918(2).

7.5. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater, treble damages or $150.00 (whichever is greater) for willful violations, and reasonable attorney fees and court costs pursuant to MCL § 339.918.

8. COUNT III — VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (PLEADED IN THE ALTERNATIVE)

8.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 2.1 through 5.7.

8.2. Defendant engaged in "trade or commerce" within the meaning of MCL § 445.902(1)(g) by attempting to collect the Alleged Debt from Plaintiff, a Michigan consumer.

8.3. Defendant's conduct constitutes one or more of the unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive practices enumerated in MCL § 445.903(1), including without limitation:

• (n) — Causing a probability of confusion or misunderstanding as to the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction;
• (s) — Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer;
• (cc) — Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner;
• (z) — Charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or services are sold.

8.4. PLEADING NOTE — REGULATED-INDUSTRY EXEMPTION. Plaintiff acknowledges that MCL § 445.904(1)(a) exempts "a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States," and that Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446 (1999), construes the exemption broadly to cover the "general transaction." Plaintiff pleads this Count in the alternative and asserts that the specific conduct alleged here — [describe conduct that falls outside the licensed activity, e.g., harassment, profanity, false threats of arrest, contact with third parties in violation of license terms] — is not "specifically authorized" by any regulator and falls outside the protected scope of Defendant's collection-agency license. See Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich. 203 (2007).

8.5. Pursuant to MCL § 445.911(2), Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees.

9. DAMAGES

9.1. Actual damages including emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, lost time and wages, telephone charges, and out-of-pocket expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.

9.2. Statutory damages as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A), MCL § 339.918, and MCL § 445.911.

9.3. Reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), MCL § 339.918(2), and MCL § 445.911(2).

9.4. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendant(s) as follows:

• A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• B. Statutory damages of $1,000 per Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);
• C. Statutory damages and treble damages under MCL § 339.918;
• D. Statutory damages of $250 (or actual damages if greater) under MCL § 445.911;
• E. Reasonable attorney fees and costs under all applicable statutes;
• F. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
• G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

12. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [DATE]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Michigan Bar No. [P-####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, MI ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action, that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the factual allegations therein are true to my own knowledge except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

Sworn to and subscribed before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public, [COUNTY] County, Michigan

(My Commission Expires: [_______________])

14. MICHIGAN PRACTICE NOTES

• FDCPA limitations. ONE (1) YEAR from the violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The Supreme Court rejected a general "discovery rule" in Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019); fraudulent-concealment tolling may still apply.
• MRCPA limitations. Six years; the MRCPA private right of action lives in MCL § 339.918 and applies to LICENSED collection agencies regulated under Article 9 of the Occupational Code.
• Creditor vs. collector. The MRCPA reaches third-party collection agencies; the parallel Michigan Collection Practices Act (MCL §§ 445.251–445.258) reaches creditors collecting their own debts. Plead in the alternative if the defendant's status is ambiguous.
• MCPA Smith-Globe exemption. The Michigan Supreme Court's broad reading of the regulated-industry exemption in Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446 (1999), has been used to dismiss MCPA claims against banks, insurers, mortgage servicers, and licensed collection agencies. To survive a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8), brief that the SPECIFIC conduct (e.g., harassment, false threats, third-party contacts) is not "specifically authorized" by the regulator and falls outside the licensed transaction. See Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich. 203 (2007).
• License verification. Verify the defendant's MI collection-agency license at LARA (Bureau of Professional Licensing) — https://www.michigan.gov/lara — before pleading the MRCPA count. An unlicensed entity may have additional exposure under MCL § 339.601.
• Attorney-fee shifting. All three statutes (FDCPA, MRCPA, MCPA) shift fees to a prevailing plaintiff; the FDCPA and MRCPA also shift fees to a prevailing defendant only on a showing of bad-faith filing.
• Forum. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) gives concurrent jurisdiction to federal district courts and state courts of competent jurisdiction. Federal court is preferred where the MRCPA and MCPA claims travel under supplemental jurisdiction.
• Class actions. FDCPA caps class statutory damages at the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the debt collector's net worth (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B)). MCPA class actions are authorized by MCL § 445.911(3).

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p (FDCPA) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41/subchapter-V
• MCL § 339.901 et seq. (MRCPA) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-act-70-of-1981
• MCL § 339.918 (MRCPA private right of action) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-339-918
• MCL § 445.901 et seq. (Michigan Consumer Protection Act) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-act-331-of-1976
• MCL § 445.911 (MCPA private right of action) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-445-911
• MCL §§ 445.251–445.258 (Michigan Collection Practices Act — creditors) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/
• Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446 (1999) — https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mi-supreme-court/1294900.html
• Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich. 203 (2007)
• Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992)
• Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Michigan AG Consumer Protection — https://www.michigan.gov/ag/consumer-protection
• LARA Bureau of Professional Licensing — https://www.michigan.gov/lara/bureau-list/bpl
• CFPB Debt Collection Rule (Reg. F), 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 — https://www.consumerfinance.gov/

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