Morris v. Choice Recovery, Inc., No. 1:2018cv05548 - Document 44 (N.D. Ill. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 10/30/2020. Mailed notice(air, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morris v. Choice Recovery, Inc. Doc. 44 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:239 , 18 05548 v. . (“CRI”) Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 , . For the reasons set forth below, Morris’s motion for summary judgment ’s June 10, 2018, Morris’s attorneys sent a fax to Ex. C, ECF No. 1 1. stated that “the debt reported on the credit report is not accurate.” Statement of Material Facts (“SMF”) placed Morris’s debt with Def.’s ’s 8 . written disputes, including faxes. Def.’s Mem. in Support of its Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”) at 7 . 20, Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:240 . Morris’s fax , . 6 5 . reported Morris’s debt to Experian, a consumer , . 12 furnished information regarding Morris’s debt to on . Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). ’ when “there is no genuine dispute as to the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact “exists only if there is enough evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in” the non movant’s favor. “view[s] .” . . . . § “ ” constitutes . communicated Morris’s debt 2 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:241 13 that Morris’s fax legitimately 28. a dispute. Def.’s Mem. in Support of MSJ at 2 n.1, ’s failure to note the dispute is excusable 1 was unintentional, resulting from a “bona fide error,” and (2) that error occurred “not the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” .2 5– , unintentional. Def.’s Support . . n Morris’s dispute letter to . 6. ’s 1 2 1041 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 2016), “[i]n some cases, t , 824, 834 (7th Cir. 1997)).” 3 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:242 “need unintentional.” , . intentionally communicated Morris’s debt to Experian, but suggest . juror could conclude on this record that CRI’s error was anything other than an unintentional, bona . , 23, 2017).3 p . t collector’s “maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid” such errors. The FDCPA “does not reasonable precaution.” 539. “processes that have mechanical or other such ‘regular orderly’ steps to avoid mistakes.” 3 , 558 U.S. at 58 regard. Def.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ at 2 4 , Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:243 559 U.S. at 587. a debt collector’s procedures involves two steps: first, determining , , — dispute. And turning to the first step in the assessment of the adequacy of CRI’s efforts to avoid ’s , . 7. Def.’s Mem. in Support of MSJ at 3, ECF No. 31. 5. of their employment. Def.’s Mem. in Support of MSJ at 3, ECF No. 31. 28 5. 24. the administrative team’s 5 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:244 ’s procedures . CRI’s procedure for ensuring that rd them in an email log separate from CRI’s . 11, 7. n CRI’s replied, “[The disputed fax] should have just gone to me.” 6. , , “it was just understood” that employees would “go to the Post Office, pick up the mail, bring it back, sort it, pass it out to the appropriate collector”). 6 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:245 4 Nor did team’s work and ensure . n , for example, the district court rejected the defendant’s bona fide error defense premised on “careless reading” by the employee who failed to note that the communication at issue disputed a . *6. , , 15 C 2939, 1534967, — — , 4 7 Case: 1:18-cv-05548 Document #: 44 Filed: 10/30/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:246 2017 , ; it employed no “processes that have mechanical or other such ‘ ’ id mistakes.” , 559 U.S. at 587 . CRI’s bona fide error is entitled to summary judgment as to CRI’s liability under the FDCPA. * * * * * Morris’s motion for summary judgment is I’s motion for , § . d 30, 2020 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
