Menu Close

Tag: N.D. Ill

FDCPA Overshadowing Claim Denied Where No Demand or Requirement to Pay

Steven Uhrich

Link: Nieto v. MRS ASSOCIATES (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9 2018).

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on their FDCPA 1692g claim, arguing that the Plaintiff received a second collection letter within the 30 day period they may dispute the debt (the “validation period”).

Plaintiff relied on prior decisions that an “unexplained demand for payment within the thirty-day validation period creates confusion by contradicting, and thus rendering ineffective, the validation notice.” Olson v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc.,366 F.3d 509, 512 (7th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff also relied on Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F. 3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997),
 in which the Seventh Circuit held that demanding payment within a specific amount of time that is contrary to the 30-day validation period constitutes an FDCPA violation.

Judge Robert Blakey distinguished Bartlett and entered summary judgment for the Defendant:

This Court finds that the second letter is distinguishable from the letter in Bartlett in two crucial ways. First, unlike in Bartlett, there is no “demand” for payment anywhere in the second letter; the second letter neither states that Plaintiff “must” take action, nor threatens legal action if Plaintiff does not take action. [49-3]. Second, the letter in Bartlettcontained both the 30-day validation notice and a threat that the debtor would be sued if he did not take action within 1 week. Bartlett, 128 F.3d at 499. The second letter here, in contrast, merely conveys three settlement options, without mentioning or referencing the 30-day validation notice contained in the first letter. [49-3]. Thus, there is simply no “juxtaposition of the one-week and thirty-day crucial periods” that the Seventh Circuit cautioned against in Bartlett. 128 F.3d at 501.

FDCPA Overshadowing Claim Rejected

Steven Uhrich

Link: NADBORSKI v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT SERVICE CORPORATION (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2018).

Plaintiff, represented by the Consumer Law Center, P.C., filed a class action alleging that the following language overshadowed the debtor’s rights under 1692g:


This is a request for payment of this account which has been placed by VONAGE for collection. Please remit your payment to the address above.
If you have not been contacted by an RMS representative, you will be receiving a call to bring this matter to a resolution. Should you receive this letter after a discussion with our representative, we thank you for your cooperation.

The Court, Ronald A. Guzman, disagreed:


Plaintiff’s assertion that the letter’s statement that he would be receiving a call contradicts the 30-day verification notice is just the type of idiosyncratic and unreasonable interpretation that the Seventh Circuit has stated is not violative of the FDCPA. Even an unsophisticated consumer, as defined above, would not believe that the promised phone call to attempt to resolve the matter somehow cancels out his right to seek verification of the debt.

. . .


According to Plaintiff, the letter is further confusing and overshadows his rights because RMS’s request that the consumer include the claim number in all communications[1]“contradicts the fact that a consumer does not need to provide specific information or wording in order to dispute a debt.” (Pl.’s Resp., Dkt. # 24, at 5.) This contention verges on the ridiculous.

Mortgage Still “Valid Debt” Despite Being Unenforceable

Steven Uhrich

Link: Bauer v. RoundPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION (N.D.Ill Oct. 29 2018).

In seeking to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home, the mortgagee violated the single refiling rule in Illinois that says you can’t re-file the same lawsuit twice. As a result, the mortgage loan became unenforceable as a matter of law. (A recent Illinois Supreme Court Decision, First Midwest v. Cobo, also found this would apply to an action on the promissory note).

The mortgage companies continued to send statements, some demanding payments. Plaintiff, represented by Rusty Payton and Marc Dann of DannLaw, filed suit to quiet title and actions under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against the mortgage servicer (Roundpoint), the investor, and the foreclosure mill law firm Wirbicki Law Group, LLC.

Judge Virginia M. Kendall found that the debt was still “valid” even though it was legally unenforceable—meaning that many of the claims do not survive.

Although the single refiling rule prevents the defendants from pursuing another foreclosure action, extinguishing their legal remedy, the rule does not extinguish the right to the underlying debt—that remains. See Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407, 1411-12 (2017); Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 852 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 736 (2018)(explaining that Illinois treats a “debt as a debt” because “[t]he creditor retains the legal right to appeal to the debtor to honor the debt out of a sense of moral obligation even if the legal obligation can no longer be enforced in court”); Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 832 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Fleming v. Yeazel,40 N.E.2d 507, 508 (1942) (“[T]he statute of limitations controls the remedy for recovery of the debt, but the debt remains the same as before, excepting that the remedy for enforcement is gone.”)).
Indeed, a creditor retains some right to payment, even if its remedy is no longer a legal one but a moral one. See Buchanan v. Northland Grp., Inc., 776 F.3d 393, 396-97 (6th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a time-barred “debt remains a debt even after the statute of limitations has run on enforcing” and “[t]here thus is nothing wrong with informing debtors that a debt remains unpaid” and “to let the debtor know what the debt is and to ask her to pay it”); HBLC, Inc. v. Egan, 2016 IL App (1st) 143922 (2016) (citing Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32-33 (3d Cir.2011) (noting that “the FDCPA permits a debt collector to seek voluntary repayment of the time-barred debt so long as the debt collector does not initiate or threaten legal action in connection with its debt collection efforts”).
Moreover, a debt once-unenforceable can become enforceable again under certain circumstances. 

However, the Court allowed one claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and two claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act concerning Roundpoint’s threats to foreclose or legally enforce the mortgage debt.

Demanding “Pre-Purchase” Interest Not Valid Under FDCPA

Steven Uhrich

Link: Gomez V. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-09420 (N.D. Ill Sept. 24, 2018).

Plaintiffs had Bank of America (“BOA”) credit cards that were delinquent and charged off in 2009. BOA did not compute or track interest on an account after it was charged off. BOA also did not send regular billing statements to holders of charged-off accounts. Two years after BOA charged off Plaintiffs’ account, BOA sold the account to Cavalry SPV, which immediately assigned it to Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC for servicing and collection.

Plaintiffs, through his counsel Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, filed a class action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that defendants computed and added post-charge-off, pre-purchase interest to the account—basically, that it added two years’ worth of interest that BOA had not computed or tracked while it held the debt.  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the FDCPA by adding interest to credit card debts after the assignor bank had waived that interest. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs argued that (1) BOA waived its right to collect post-charge-off, pre-sale interest, (2) this waiver barred Defendants from imposing post-charge-off, pre-sale interest, and (3) Cavalry violated the FDCPA by adding post-charge-off, pre-sale interest, thereby misrepresenting the amount Plaintiff owed.

Defendants argued that (1) Cavalry SPV is not a debt collector, (2) Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and (3) the response letter is not a collection communication.

Judge Andrea R. Wood entered summary judgment in favor of defendant because it was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations period for FDCPA claims. The court also held, somewhat ironically, that Defendant waived its argument regarding choice-of-law analysis as to the waiver issue (Defendant didn’t want Illinois law to apply). Under that analysis, judge Wood found that:

the fact that BOA chose not to charge interest for two years (and it consciously made that decision as part of a broader policy) indicates that it intended to waive its right to collect this post-charge-off interest retroactively. BOA’s implied waiver of the right to charge interest on Plaintiffs’ account retroactively is further evidenced by the fact that BOA did not send periodic account statements to Plaintiffs.

It thus appears the merits of the suit would likely have supported summary judgment had the statute of limitations been met.

 

Class Settlement Denied in TCPA and FDCPA Case Against Ocwen

Steven Uhrich

Link: Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-8677 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2018).

In this large TCPA / FDCPA case against mortgage servicing company Ocwen, judge Matthew F. Kennelly denied the parties’ motion for final approval of a class which was potentially enormous: Ocwen’s records showed that it had made, during the period covered by the limited class proposed for preliminary injunctive relief, over 146 million calls to 1.45 million unique telephone numbers.

Once Plaintiffs (represented by Burke Law Offices and others) realized Ocwen’s insurer would not be covering them (Ocwen failed to give its insurer notice), there was a question whether Ocwen would be able to cover any settlement or if it would need to fold, leaving the class with nothing. Plaintiffs responded by trying to add in the banks and trusts Ocwen was working for, but the court in an earlier ruling denied that request as not timely. Plaintiffs then filed suit against the banks and trusts themselves.

The judge rejected the final $17,500,000 settlement on two grounds: One, that there was nothing in the record that showed Ocwen would not be able to pay, which might account for the relatively low amount of money given the number of calls. Two, the settlement called for the dismissal of the second case filed against the banks and trusts, but there did not appear to be any consideration given by the banks in the settlement agreement.

As a refresher on getting a class settlement approved, here’s the standard the court used:

A district court may approve a proposed settlement of a class action only after it directs notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound and finds, after a hearing (which the Court has already held), that the proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In making the latter determination, courts in this circuit typically consider the following factors:

(1) the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the extent of settlement offer; (2) the complexity, length, and expense of further litigation; (3) the amount of opposition to the settlement; (4) the reaction of members of the class to the settlement; (5) the opinion of competent counsel; and (6) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed. . . . The most important factor relevant to the fairness of a class action settlement is the strength of plaintiff’s case on the merits balanced against the amount offered in the settlement.

Wong v. Accretive Health, Inc., 773 F.3d 859, 863-64 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court notes that as of December 1, 2018, absent contrary Congressional action, an amendment to Rule 23(e)(2) setting forth a list of points a court must consider in determining whether a proposed class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will address these points as well. They include whether:

• the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class;

• the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;

• it treats class members equitably relative to each other; and

• the relief provided by the settlement is adequate, taking into consideration the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; the effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief; the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees; any agreements made in connection with the proposed settlement.

Proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) (eff. Dec. 1, 2018).

Mistaken ID FDCPA Claim Survives Summary Judgment

Steven Uhrich

Link 1: (SHA Opinion) Ali v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-06178 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2018);
Link 2: (SAA Opinion) Ali v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-06178 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2018).

These two consolidated cases derive from PRA’s attempt to collect different debts from the wrong Syed H. Ali and from his father Syed A. Ali. The suit alleges that PRA unsuccessfully sought to collect a debt from a person named SHA located in Texas, and then went after a different SHA—one of the plaintiffs here. PRA sent collection letters and then filed a lawsuit through the defendant attorneys. The underlying error here is defendants sought collection against the Debtor and served the collections complaint at an address where another person bearing the same name (including middle initial) lived.

Plaintiff, represented by  Bryan Thompson and Robert Harrer of the Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C., Daniel Brown, of Main Street Attorney, LLC, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C. & The Law Office of M. Kris Kasalo, Ltd., filed a 9-count complaint.

Opinion 1

The court (Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman) issued two opinions: one for the minor SHA and one for the father SAA. As to SHA, the court found that factual issues abound as to whether this was a consumer debt (thus falling within the FDCPA) and also regarding the Bona Fide Error defense that Defendants asserted. However the court granted summary judgment as to the 1692d and 1692f claims finding that there wasn’t harassing or unfair or unconscionable means used in the attempted debt collections.

The claim under the Illinois Collection Agency Act (“ICAA”), 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq. failed because the court found that the ICAA did not intend to give consumers a private right of action and dismissed it sua sponte under Rule 12(h)(3):

SHA cites Sherman as authority for his implied right of private action. Sherman v. Field Clinic, 74 Ill. App. 3d 21, 392 N.E. 2d 154 (1st Dist. 1979). Since Sherman was decided nearly 40 years ago this district and even Illinois state courts have been split on whether to follow it . . .  If the legislature intended for there to be an implied right of action, it would have written it into the law itself, especially considering the lapse in time since Sherman was decided, implying this right.

Opinion 2

The second (SAA) opinion  addressed additional claims by SAA against Blitt & Gaines, P.C. and Freedman Anselmo Lindberg Oliver, LLC (which have since merged). The additional counts were brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court dismissed the 1692d claim on the basis that there was no evidence that the collection attorneys knew they had they wrong man, but allwed the 1692e claim against PRA to survive despite the Bona Fide Error defense:

The Section 1692e FDCPA violations against Portfolio stem from its alleged failure to confirm the account Debtor’s personal information and recognize that it differed from SAA’s information before pursuing collections and the lawsuit. This Court finds that there is a question of fact whether a reasonable, unsophisticated consumer would be misled by Portfolio’s actions. SAA was upset and confused by the letters and the lawsuit against “Syed Ali.” Indeed, mistakenly being sent a demand letter or being served with a lawsuit in one’s name, taken in isolation, could be confusing[. . .]

This Court [. . .] finds an issue of fact as to the sufficiency of Portfolio’s controls and procedures since Portfolio was on notice from the August 29, 2014 TransUnion report, prior to its filing of the lawsuit against Syed Ali, that another Syed Ali lived at the address associated with the Debtor.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector attorneys based on their bona fide error defense, noting that they don’t have to apply “most comprehensive approach to avoid errors. Courts have found it sufficient for defendants to take reasonable efforts to avoid violations if FDCPA.”

As to the impermissible pull claim under the FCRA, the court sided with PRA in that the CRA was the entity responsible for the pull on the incorrect address and the subsequent pulls were related to accounts that the correct SAA had with Portfolio.

 

In Rem Demand for Neighborhood Association Debt Violates FDCPA

Steven Uhrich

Link: Ellison v. Fullett Rosenlund Anderson PC, Case No. 17 CV 2236 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2018).

Defendant law firm sent a notice on behalf of Brookside Village Neighborhood Association to collect past due monthly assessments. Plaintiff had discharged the debt in bankruptcy. Regardless, Defendant sent a dunning letter titled “IN REM NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR POSSESSION” that stated:

THIS IS THE PROPERTY’S NOTICE … that the property is in default of its ongoing obligation due to Brookside Village Neighborhood Association in the sum of $4,100.00 for its proportionate share of the expenses … lawfully agreed upon due and owing at least in part since 02/01/2011, as well as the sum of $265.02 in legal fees and costs in attempting to collect this account, for a total sum of $4,365.02.

This is its NOTICE that payment in full of the amount stated above is demanded of the property and that, unless its payment of the FULL AMOUNT is made on or before the expiration of thirty-four (34) days after the date of mailing of this Notice, THE ASSOCIATION MAY SEEK TO TERMINATE ANY RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES.

The court, judge Harry D. Leinenweber, found that Plaintiff is a “consumer” despite having discharged the debt, that the notice was in connection with the collection of a debt (despite Defendant’s arguments it was only “in rem”), and that the notice taken as a whole would be misleading and confusing on its face to the average unsophisticated consumer.

Defendant’s hail mary argument that the FDCPA conflicts with Illinois’ Forcible Entry and Detainer Act was summarily rejected:

FRA fails to identify any conflict, let alone one that rises to the magnitude of conflict present in Ho, between FEDA and the FDCPA. Nor can the Court find any such conflicts. While fulfilling FEDA requirements, a notice or letter can still be drafted in a way that violates the FDCPA. This happens to be the case for the Notice here. Regardless of whether the Notice complies with FEDA requirements, the Court finds that the Notice was misleading and could have been crafted in a way to avoid ambiguity and confusion, particularly by informing Plaintiff either that she was not liable for the debt or by specifying the amount, if any, she was still liable for post-bankruptcy discharge.

Plaintiff was represented by Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

TCPA Class Claim Against Uber Subject to Arbitration

Steven Uhrich

Link: Johnson v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., No. 16 C 5468 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2018).

Judge John Z. Lee found that Uber’s arbitration click-wrap agreement is enforceable, and as a result tossed the putative class claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

Illinois law requires that a consumer be provided reasonable notice of all the terms and conditions of an agreement as well as reasonable notice that, by clicking a button, the consumer is assenting to the agreement. See Sgouros, 817 F.3d at 1034-36. “This is a fact-intensive inquiry: we cannot presume that a person who clicks on a box that appears on a computer screen has notice of all contents not only of that page but of other content that requires further action (scrolling, following a link, etc.).” Id. at 1034. As part of this inquiry, the court considers whether a reasonable person would be misled, confused, misdirected, or distracted by the manner in which the terms and conditions are presented. Id.

. . .

Similar to Dell’s website in Hubbert, the app that Johnson used to create his Uber account included the following statement: “By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.” See Def.’s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 15. The statement appeared in an easy-to-read font on an uncluttered screen, and no scrolling was required to view it. Id. ¶¶ 10, 15, 17. The words “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” in the statement also served as a hyperlink, which appeared in a larger-sized font, enclosed in an outlined box. See id. The hyperlink, when clicked, brought the user to a screen displaying Uber’s Terms of Service in effect at the time. Id. ¶¶ 15, 18. As in Hubbert, the Court holds that the manner in which this statement and the Terms of Service were presented placed a reasonable person on notice that there were terms incorporated with creating an Uber account and that, by creating an account, he or she was agreeing to those terms.

 

Collection Calls to Wrong Person Basis for Valid FDCPA, TCPA claims—Not ICFA

Steven Uhrich

Link: Hayes v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-1239 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2018).

This suit, filed by Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., alleges that employees from RPM called plaintiff numerous times looking to speak with and collect a debt from someone named “Lesha Wayne.” The plaintiff told RPM numerous times they had the wrong number and told them to stop calling. They didn’t. Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Count I); Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (Count II); and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (Count III). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the court, judge Robert M. Dow, granted in part and dismissed in part.

The court found Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege facts to show that he qualifies as a consumer under § 1692a(3) of the FDCPA, and dismissed his claim under Section 1692b(3) which requires that:

Any debt collector communicating with any person other than the consumer for the purpose of acquiring information about the consumer shall * * * not communicate with any such person more than once unless requested to do so by such person or unless the debt collector reasonably believes that the earlier response of such person is erroneous or incomplete and that such person now has correct or complete location information.

The court also dismissed his claim under section 1692c(a)(1) which provides:

Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt (1) at any unusual time or place or a time or place known or which should be known to be inconvenient to the consumer.

The court dismissed his claim under 1692e finding that Plaintiff didnot allege that he believed he owed the debt, or that Defendant or its agents ever said anything to him that even implicitly suggested he owed the debt. Instead, Plaintiff argued the calls were an attempt to mislead him into paying the debt.

The court also dismissed his f claim:

A Plaintiff who uses the same factual allegations underlying another § 1692 claim for his § 1692f claim, however, fails to state an independent basis on which relief can be granted.

The court did allow the section 1692d(5) claim to stand:

While Defendant asserts these allegations are not enough to state claim, the court in Wright v. Enhanced Recovery Company denied a motion for summary judgment where the parties agreed that the defendant had only been called 21 times but disagreed at what point and how many times the plaintiff had asked for the calls to stop. 227 F. Supp. 3d at 1214-15. In light of Wright, and the fact that Plaintiff alleges he demanded the calls to stop on numerous occasions, Plaintiff has alleged facts to show a plausible violation of the FDCPA with regard to § 1692d(5).

The TCPA claim survived despite Defendant’s argument regarding whether plaintiff alleged they used an autodialer:

Here, Plaintiff alleges both that he has experienced the distinctive “click and pause” after answering calls from Defendant [1, ¶ 18], and that on other occasions he experienced “dead air” and received no response whatsoever when he answered Defendant’s calls, [1, ¶ 19]. Given these experiences, Plaintiff infers that Defendant used an ATDS to make these calls. [1, ¶ 47.] Considering the precedent above, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support the reasonable inference that Defendant used a ATDS to place the relevant calls.

The Court also dismissed the ICFA claim:

As explained above, Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to show that Defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Thus, he has not pled facts to support his claim under the ICFA. While Defendant’s calls may have been annoying, and possibly abusive, nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that Defendant sought to deceive Plaintiff.

Claims for Botched Servicing of Student Loans May Move Forward

Steven Uhrich

Link: Fleischer v. ACCESSLEX INSTITUTE, Case No. 17-cv-08295 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 19, 2018).

Plaintiff filed suit against the servicer, owner, and collector of his consolidated student loans (Accesslex Institute D/B/A Access Group, Conduent Education Services, LLC F/K/A Acs Education Services, Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corporation D/B/A American Student Assistance, Delta Management Associates, Inc., and F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc.). Plaintiff is represented by Kruger & Gruber, LLP.

He alleged that after consolidating his loans in 2011, he entered into a forbearance with his then-servicer Access Group where he would pay only 2.5% interest for three years on his $38,000 balance. 23 months later, Delta Management (whom Plaintiff had never heard of) sent him a letter saying his balance was over $50,000. After years of disputes with the Consumer Financial Protection bureau and the Defendants, the account was sent to debt collectors who went after Plaintiff for the inflated amount.

Plaintiff filed action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act against F.H. Cann, Delta, and Conduent; claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against F.H. Cann and Delta; breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims against Conduent; fraudulent and negligent-misrepresentation claims against Delta; and a fraudulent-concealment claim against Conduent. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Manish S. Shah allowed his ICFA claim of unfairness to proceed against Conduent, and found that the ICFA claim against Conduent and Delta would normally be time-barred—but it falls within the “continuing violation” tolling doctrine, which delays accrual of the statute of limitations until (1) the date of the last injury or (2) when the tortious acts cease. Gredell v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 346 Ill.App.3d 51, 59 (1st Dist. 2004).

The court allowed the FDCPA claims against F.H. Cann and Delta to survive, alleging that they failed to give him the required notice under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and that its statements regarding removing his default status from his credit report was potentially false or misleading.

The court allowed the breach of contract claim to survive, but dismissed the negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims and fraudulent concealment claim.