Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
HEIDI EICHNER, )
Individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, and )
CHASE AUTO FINANCE CORP., ) Class Action Complaint
)
Defendants. ) Jury Trial Demanded
)
Plaintiff Heidi Eichner, by and through the undersigned attorneys, makes the
following allegations and claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (“Chase”) and
Chase Auto Finance Corp. (“CAF”),1 upon personal knowledge as to her own actions and
INTRODUCTION
1. This action seeks redress for business practices that violate the
2. The court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337; Brill v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 451 (7th Cir. 2005).
1
Chase and CAF are collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants.”
some of the acts which give rise to this Complaint occurred in this District.
PARTIES
County, Wisconsin, and within the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plaintiff received
had not consented to receiving such calls from Defendants and did not provide
5. Chase is one of the world’s largest banks, and is among the top
three largest makers of car loans in the United States, with its primary place of business
servicing and financing motor vehicles with its primary place of business at 270 Park
Avenue, New York, New York 10017-2070. CAF has various locations throughout the
nation, including locations in this state in Oconomowoc and Appleton, Wisconsin. CAF
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chase. At all times relevant to this complaint, CAF was
acting as Chase’s agent, and is thus jointly and severally liable with Chase for violations
of the TCPA.
FACTS
of persons at various call centers, including those in Dallas, Texas and Phoenix, Arizona.
computerized account information to track, record, and maintain the millions of accounts
telephone dialing system to contact Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, with regard to a
12. The TCPA regulates, inter alia, the use of automated dialing
systems. Specifically, the plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits the use of
autodialers to make any call to a wireless number in the absence of an emergency or the
(“FCC”), the agency Congress vested with authority to issue regulations implementing
the TCPA, such calls are prohibited because, as Congress found, automated or
prerecorded telephone calls are a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live
solicitation calls, and such calls can be costly and inconvenient. The FCC also
recognized that wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in
advance or after the minutes are used. Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order,
creditor (or on behalf of a creditor) are permitted only if the calls are made with the
“prior express consent” of the called party. In the Matter of Rules and Regulations
Ruling”), 23 F.C.C.R. 559, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 43 Communications Reg. (P&F) 877, 2008
granted only if the wireless number was provided by the consumer to the creditor, and
that such number was provided during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed.”
17. Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008
18. Plaintiff has no loan with Chase or CAF, and never provided any
telephone numbers whatsoever to Chase or CAF in connection with any car loan.
20. The calls made to plaintiff were made on behalf of Chase, and
therefore, regardless of whether Chase, CAF or their agents made the call, Chase is liable
for the TCPA violation. See FCC Order 07-232, at ¶ 10 (January 4, 2008) (“Similarly, a
number bears the responsibility for any violation of the Commission’s rules. Calls placed
by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself
numbers without regard to the TCPA or whether the telephone is cellular telephone.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
23. Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 on behalf of herself and a Class of all others similarly situated consisting of
all persons in the United States who, on or after January 4, 2007 until the final disposition
of this case (the “Class Period”), received a non-emergency telephone call from CAF to a
artificial or prerecorded voice and who did not provide prior express consent for such
employees of Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; the
affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, heirs, and assigns of Defendants; any federal,
state, or local government entity; and any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over
this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staffs. The
members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be
impracticable. Plaintiff reasonably estimates that there are hundreds of consumers who
have been subject to calls from CAF, on behalf of itself and Chase, in violation of the
TCPA.
25. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the
Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including,
whether Defendants have made any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes
or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone
paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio
common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call,
26. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the
Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendants have
27. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Class, and has retained attorneys experienced in class and complex litigation.
28. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair
of repetitious litigation.
of the claims of the Class. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and
32. The foregoing acts and omissions of Chase and CAF constitute
numerous and multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to
227 et seq., Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory
damages for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
227(b)(3)(B).
34. Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek
injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Chase and CAF in the
future.
36. The foregoing acts and omissions of Chase and CAF constitute
numerous and multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not
violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and each member of the Class is entitled to
treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every call in violation of the statute,
38. Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek
injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Chase and CAF in the
future.
Chase’s and CAF’s call centers, except where the cellular telephone subscriber has
JURY DEMAND
MILBERG LLP
Peter G. Safirstein
Andrei V. Rado
Anne Marie Vu
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119
avu@milberg.com
(212) 594-5300
(212) 868-1229 (FAX)