Ramian v. Alltran

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM Order: The complaint in this matter is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 1/24/17. Failure to file an amended complaint by 1/24/17 will result in this action itself being dismissed. See Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/6/2017:Mailed notice(lp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: ROBERT RAMIAN
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLTRAN
5800 North Course Drive
Houston, Texas 77072
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 11622

MEMORANDUM ORDER 1
To characterize this action, instituted by a Complaint drafted by attorney John Carlin, as
puzzling has to be viewed as the understatement of the month -- or given its timing, perhaps as the
understatement of 2016. Some minor evidence of counsel’s confusion is manifested at the very
outset, for here is the Complaint’s opening assertion (with emphasis added) , placed even before the
centered heading “INTRODUCTION”
Now comes Plaintiff by and through her attorneys, and, for his Complaint alleges as
follows:
That small glitch, however, pales in comparison with the really bizarre inconsistencies
encountered elsewhere in the Complaint. Thus:
1.

Both the Complaint’s case caption and Complaint ¶ 1 identify “Robert

Ramian” as plaintiff, and the same is true of the contemporaneously filed Civil Cover

_________________________
1
This is one of the last two new lawsuits in which this Court’s chambers received a courtesy
copy of a newly-filed Complaint before the advent of the New Year. As the text of this memorandum
order will reflect, if this Court were inclined to coin outrageous puns it would voice its suspicion that
counsel bringing each of the lawsuits had been practicing before the wrong “bar” in celebrating the
imminent arrival of 2017.

Sheet and Attorney Appearance Form. Thereafter the allegations through Complaint ¶
10 speak only of the “Plaintiff” and “Defendant.”
2.

But mysteriously, like Aphrodite riding “quite naked in an oyster shell on top

of the sea,” 2 Renee Nabril suddenly appears as the action’s Plaintiff in Complaint ¶
11. Then all of the Complaint’s allegations thereafter speak only of her and of
defendant Alltran, which is asserted to have been formerly known as United Recovery
Systems LP, identified as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act (the “Act,” U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) 3
Under most circumstances that quite extraordinary hiccup might perhaps be overlooked, with
attorney Carlin given the opportunity to return to the drawing board to present an acceptable
Amended Complaint. But there is something far more troubling about the existing Complaint in
substantive terms. Here are Complaint ¶¶ 23 through 27, which begin by referring to Complaint Ex.
A, the January 3, 2016 collection letter mailed by Alltran to Ramian (!), who may thus turn out to be
the plaintiff after all:
23. Said letter stated “[A]s of the date of this letter you owe the amount stated above.
Because your account continues to accrue interest and may accrue late and other
charges on all owe balances pursuant to your agreement with Citibank,N.A., the
amount due on the date you pay may be greater.” See Exhibit A.
24. This debt has been charged off prior 4 Plaintiff receiving said letter.
_________________________
2
W. H. Auden, Anthem for St. Cecelia’s Day.
3

Further references to provisions of the Act will simply take the form “Section --” omitting
the prefatory “15 U.S.C. §.”
4

At this point attorney Carlin obviously omitted the word “to.”
-2-

25. There is absolutely nothing in the agreement between Citibank and Plaintiff that
would give Citibank (or Defendant) the right to charge “late” or “other charges.”
26. There is absolutely no legal possibility that the statement in paragraph 23 can
come to pass.
27. It is a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e to imply an outcome that cannot
legally come to pass.
In relevant part Complaint Ex. A, after identifying the underlying indebtedness sought to be collected
as “$3,871.43 as of January 3, 2016,” then continues with the two sentences quoted in Complaint ¶
23.
By definition the allegations in Complaint ¶¶ 25 and 26 must depend on what is said in “the
agreement between the Citibank and Plaintiff” to which both the January 3 debt collection letter and
the Complaint refer. Attorney Carlin necessarily had to have that document to refer to, for his mere
ipse dixit would not satisfy his obligation of objective good faith under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
In light of the two deficiencies -- the clerical one and the substantive one -- identified in this
memorandum order, the Complaint is dismissed -- but without prejudice. If it is replaced by an
appropriate and adequate Amended Complaint (including a copy of the presently missing agreement
between Ramian and Citibank as an additional exhibit) on or before January 24, 2017, this action
may go forward. If not, this action itself will then be dismissed.

Date: January 6, 2017

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
-3-