Maldonado v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC, No. 1:2014cv06694 - Document 103 (N.D. Ill. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/23/2015:Mailed notice(wp, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maldonado v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC Doc. 103 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 denying the 7, Plaintiffs’ 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 -
]]>
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.
