16.  According to Dell Inc.’s 10-Q SEC filing on 12/3/12, “Dell” is Dell  Inc. individually and together with its consolidated subsidiaries, and:  Dell offers or arranges various financing options and services for its business  and consumer customers in the U.S. and Canada through Dell Financial  Services (“DFS”). DFS's key activities include the origination, collection,  and servicing of customer receivables primarily related to the purchase of  Dell products and services.  Id., p. 12.  * * *  Dell makes credit decisions based on proprietary scorecards, which include  the customer's credit history, payment history, credit usage, and other credit  agency-related elements.  Id., p. 15.    * * *  Dell transfers certain U.S. customer financing receivables to Special Purpose  Entities (“SPEs”) which meet the definition of a Variable Interest Entity  ("VIE") and are consolidated into Dell's Condensed Consolidated Financial  Statements.  Id., p. 16.  4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP   Doc # 1   Filed 01/23/15   Pg 5 of 11    Pg ID 5 6	
    17.  On or around 2002 or 2003, Plaintiff went online to Dell.com and  purchased a Dell computer for personal use.   18.  In conjunction with Plaintiff’s online purchase at Dell.com, Dell Inc.  agreed to provide goods to Plaintiff and through that same transaction on Dell.com  Plaintiff’s purchase of goods was financed.     19.  This financing process is similar to those done by an automobile  dealership, where the dealership sells the good and arranges financing for the buyer.    20.  On information and belief, Dell placed the financing of Plaintiff’s  purchase for goods with Dell Financial Services (“DFS”) and per DFS’ agreement  with CIT, within two days from the date of the loan’s origination CIT transferred  title of the loan back to DFS.    21.  On information and belief, DFS then placed the loan in a special  purpose entity that then transferred the loan to another entity that DFS had an  interest in through its related entities and partners, including Dell Inc.   22.  DFS then serviced the loan and caused to be sent to Plaintiff at least  one monthly billing statement.   23.  Plaintiff made at least one monthly payment directly to DFS for the  benefit of Dell, Inc., for his financed purchase.   24.  No debtor – creditor relationship existed between Plaintiff and CIT.   25.  Plaintiff did not have any direct contact with CIT.  4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP   Doc # 1   Filed 01/23/15   Pg 6 of 11    Pg ID 6 7	
    26.  No payment was made by Plaintiff in relation to the amount financed  for his Dell.com purchase on or after February 3, 2008.   27.  At a point in time before February 3, 2008, Plaintiff was in default.     28.  At some point in time, DFS, as a part of a portfolio of nonperforming  account receivables, sold Plaintiff’s debt to Midland Funding, LLC.   29.  On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff was sued in the case captioned,  Midland Funding LLC Assignee of CIT Bank v. Eric Hilton, an Ind., 12 M1  149423, in the State of Michigan, 29th Judicial District (the “state court matter”).    30.   A redacted true and correct copy of that complaint and all of the  attachments is attached hereto as Exhibit A.  31.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-30 above.  15 U.S.C § 1692e, in pertinent part, provides:  A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading  representation or means in connection with the collection of any  debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the  following conduct is a violation of this section:  * * *  (2) The false representation of --  (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. . . .  * * *  (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or  4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP   Doc # 1   Filed 01/23/15   Pg 7 of 11    Pg ID 7 8	
   that is not intended to be taken. . . .  * * *  (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to  collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information  concerning a consumer.   32.  The FDCPA broadly prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection  methods including filing suit on a time barred debt.  See e.g. Murray v. CCB Credit  Services, Inc., 04 C 7456, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25361, 2004 WL 2943656, at *2  (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2004) ("[A] violation of the FDCPA occurs if the attempt to  collect the time-barred debt is accompanied by a threat to sue, or if litigation has  actually  begun."); Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613, 616  (N.D. Ill. 2001);  Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480 (M.D. Ala.  1987).   33.  Defendants’ conduct related to the state court matter violated 15  U.S.C §§ 1692e(2)(A), e(5) and e(10).   34.  In defending the state court matter, Plaintiff incurred out of pocket  actual damages.  35.  The class consists of:  All individuals with a Michigan address, whom  were sued by Midland Funding LLC, on a debt originating with CIT Bank, where  the suit was filed over four years after default, alternatively over six years after  4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP   Doc # 1   Filed 01/23/15   Pg 8 of 11    Pg ID 8 9	
   default, during a time period from the filing of this lawsuit to one year prior to the  filing.     36.  On information and belief, the class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impractical.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are  more than 40 members of the class above.   37.  If it is determine that there are more than 40 persons with a Michigan  address, whom Stillman Law Office filed a suit on behalf of Midland Funding LLC,  on a debt originating with CIT Bank, where the suit was filed over four years after  default, alternatively over six years after default, during a time period from the  filing of this lawsuit to one year prior to the filing, Plaintiff places Stillman Law  Office along with potential class members on notice and expressly reserves for the  purpose of relation back to the original date of the filing of the Complaint the  ability to add the above as a class allegation against Stillman Law Office  See  generally Sokolski v. TransUnion Corp., 178 F.R.D. 393 (E.D.N.Y. 1998);  Navarro v Eskanos & Adler, No. C 06-02231 WHA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90880  * 9 – 10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2006).   38.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class that  predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. The  predominant common question is whether Plaintiff and the class members were  sued on a time barred debt.  4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP   Doc # 1   Filed 01/23/15   Pg 9 of 11    Pg ID 9 10	
    39.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  Plaintiff has retained legal counsel experienced in handling class actions brought  under the FDCPA.    40.  A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment  for Plaintiff and any class certified against Defendants for:  A.  Statutory and actual damages; and  B.   Attorney’s fees and costs.  Respectfully submitted,  s/ Curtis C. Warner      Curtis C. Warner   Curtis C. Warner (P59915) 