Kubiak v. Peterson et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Kubiak is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of that complaint on or before September 19, 2014. At that point this Court can determine what further proceedings are called for. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/4/2014.(lcw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MALGORZATA KUBIAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEIGH PETERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 6691

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This pro se action by Malgorzata Kubiak ("Kubiak") against Leigh Peterson ("Peterson")
and her attorney Bruce O'Neill ("O'Neill") has been assigned to this Court's calendar, with
Kubiak's Complaint being accompanied by a Clerk's-Office-supplied printed form of In Forma
Pauperis Application ("Application"). Because Kubiak's charges are conclusory in nature, with
no real indication as to the basis on which a state court judgment was obtained against her, this
memorandum order is issued sua sponte to ascertain the predicate on which this action may go
forward.
As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the dispute identified in the Complaint stems
from a judgment against Kubiak for $103,240.52, obtained by Peterson (with O'Neill acting as
her lawyer) in a Wisconsin state court. That being so, the judgment is entitled to full faith and
credit in this District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 and its implementation of Art. IV § 1 of the
United States Constitution. That precludes a collateral attack on the judgment itself in this
District Court, and the Complaint contains no assertion that Kubiak is pursuing any efforts in the
state court system to challenge the judgment.

Although this Court expresses no ultimate views on the matter, the nature of the claim
that gave rise to the complained-of judgment may well have an impact on each of Kubiak's
asserted predicates for federal jurisdiction:
1.

As for diversity of citizenship (see 28 U.S.C. § 1332), such cases as
Adams v. Catrambone, 359 F. 3d 858, 861 n.3 (7th Cir. 2004) teach that
"when the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the district court
must dismiss the suit." This Court rarely does so (in substantial part
because a party's residence and the state of his or her citizenship most
often coincide) -- but in this instance something more about the
controversy other than simply the judgment amount must be provided.

2.

As for the Truth in Lending Act, Complaint ¶ 4 refers to "an interstate
credit transaction," but once again that characterization alone does not do
the job. Kubiak has to flesh out that assertion appropriately.

3.

As for the Fair Debt Collection Act, the very case cited by Kubiak
(Barlow v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., 856 F. Supp. 2d 828, 833-34 (M.D La.
2012)) identifies the limited statutory definition of "debt" -- so once again
more information is needed from Kubiak.

4.

Finally, the Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibits reporting false and
fraudulent information. That being so, it would not seem that the truthful
reporting of a judgment would necessarily violate that statute.

What all of this boils down to is that at a minimum this Court should be furnished by Kubiak
with a copy of the state court complaint against her, so that this Court can ascertain the nature of
the claim that ripened into the judgment. That alone may suffice to confirm (or perhaps to
-2-

negate) the existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction -- but in all events it should serve as a
useful first step.
Accordingly Kubiak is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of that complaint on or
before September 19, 2014. At that point this Court can determine what further proceedings are
called for. 1

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 4, 2014

1

Meanwhile no action is being taken on the Application.

-3-