Whaley v. Omni Credit Services of Florida, Inc.

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/30/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JANE WHALEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
OMNI CREDIT SERVICES OF
FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 8443

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit has been
brought by Alabama citizen Jane Whaley (“Whaley”) against Florida
corporation Omni Credit Services of Florida, Inc. (“Omni”).
Whaley’s Chicago law firm charges that Omni attempted to collect
a debt that she owed to Home Shopping Network and persisted in
doing so even after the lawyers here directed that such efforts
should cease because Whaley’s troubled financial circumstances
had caused her nonpayment.
It is true that two federal venue provisions, 28 U.S.C.
§1391(a) and (b)1, combine to allow this action to be brought
here:

Section 1391(b)(1) permits suit “where any defendant

resides,” and Section 1391(c) enlarges the concept of corporate
residence to embrace “any judicial district in which it is
subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is
commenced.”

1

Because Omni has designated CT Corporation System as

All further references to Title 28’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”

its Illinois registered agent, the combination of those
provisions places Omni in the crosshairs for suit here.
But that is only part of the story.

This Court has long

viewed it as an abuse of the system to hale a corporation into
the courts in this judicial district when nothing about the
claim, except for the location of the lawyers’ office and the
fact that the law firm has launched communications from that
office directed to the out-of-state defendant at its out-of-state
location, provides any Illinois nexus at all.
This action would plainly be a prime candidate for a Section
1404(a) transfer.

This Court has had occasion to comment in the

past that “convenience of counsel” is not one of the relevant
criteria under that statute.

Whaley’s counsel, who have been the

targets of like communications from this Court in earlier
lawsuits under the same statute, are ordered to provide a written
response on or before December 14, 2011 as to why this action
should remain in this District Court.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

November 30, 2011

2