Maldonado v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/23/2015:Mailed notice(wp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JULIA MALDANADO,
Case No. 14 C 6694
consolidated with
14 C 7091
14 C 7092
14 C 7371
14 C 7373
14 C 7374
14 C 7812
14 C 8175
14 C 10176
15 C 558
15 C 607
15 C 1097
15 C 1124
15 C 2538
Plaintiff,
v.
FREEDMAN ANSELMO LINDBERG,
LLC,
Defendant.
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
ORDER
The Court reaffirms the granting of the Motions for Summary
Judgment for all of the cases assigned to it with the exception
of Delitz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 14 CV
10176 and Guy v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC and Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 15 CV 2538.
cases
the
Court
grants
the
Defendants’
In these two
Motions
for
Summary
oral
ruling
Judgment and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motions.
STATEMENT
On
October
granting
the
7,
Plaintiffs’
denying Defendants’
attention
that
2015,
two
this
Motions
Motions.
of
Court
the
It
issued
for
was
an
Summary
brought
Plaintiffs,
to
Delitz
Judgment
the
v.
and
Court’s
Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC in Case No. 14 CV 10176, and Guy v.
Freedman
Anselmo
Lindberg,
LLC
and
Portfolio
Recovery
Associates, LLC in Case No. 15 CV 2538, while they were sued in
an incorrect venue after Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 757 F.3d
636 (7th Cir. 2014), had not been served with Summons prior to
the voluntary dismissals of the cases against them.
At the
Court’s request the Defendant has filed with the Court, five (5)
decisions of other judges of the Northern District of Illinois,
where
the
occurred
issue
prior
Defendant.
was
to
whether
the
a
violation
service
of
of
Summons
Section
on
1692(i)
the
debtor
Knight v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC,
et al., No. 14-cv-8169 (N.D. Ill. May 6 2015) (Judge Charles
Norgle); Abu Samra v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, No. 14-cv-9422 (N.D.
Ill.
August
5,
2015)
(Judge
Robert
Dow);
Betts
v.
Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 15-cv-1248 (N.D. Ill. August 31,
2015) (Judge Elaine Bucklo); Taylor v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C.,
No. 14-cv-5781 (N.D. Ill. October 1, 2015) (Judge John Darrah);
and Gillis v. Blitt & Gaines, P.C. and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case
No. 14-cv-5782 (N.D. Ill. October 1, 2015) (Judge John Darrah.
In each of the five cases the judges held that this section
requires both the filing in the improper venue and service of
Summons.
While the Seventh Circuit has not ruled on this specific
point, the Fifth Circuit has.
See, Serna v. Law Office of
Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C., 732 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2013).
The
court’s
not
reasoning
was
that
the
debtor-defendant
does
experience the harm that Section 1692(i) seeks to prevent, i.e.,
having to take steps such as hiring a lawyer to defend a claim
in a distant venue, until he has notice of the suit.
This Court
does not see any reason not to follow the Fifth Circuit decision
as well as the Court’s five colleagues.
- 2 -
Therefore, the Court reaffirms the granting of the Motions
for Summary Judgment for all of the cases assigned to it with
the exception of Delitz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
Case No. 14 CV 10176 and Guy v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC
and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 15 CV 2538.
In
these two cases the Court grants the Defendants’ Motions for
Summary Judgment and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motions.
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: October 23, 2015
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?