Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-14-2022
Case Style:
Micha Lee v. Pingora Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
Case Number: 1:22-cv-05374
Judge: Joan B. Gottschall
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Cook County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Chicago Consumer Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Matthew John Richardson and Edward R. Peterk
Description: Chicago, Illinois consumer law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation theory seeking $15,000 in damages.
25 U.S.C. 1692 provides:
§1692. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Abusive practices
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
(b) Inadequacy of laws
Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.
(c) Available non-abusive collection methods
Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts.
(d) Interstate commerce
Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.
(e) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
§1693. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Rights and liabilities undefined
The Congress finds that the use of electronic systems to transfer funds provides the potential for substantial benefits to consumers. However, due to the unique characteristics of such systems, the application of existing consumer protection legislation is unclear, leaving the rights and liabilities of consumers, financial institutions, and intermediaries in electronic fund transfers undefined.
(b) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems. The primary objective of this subchapter, however, is the provision of individual consumer rights.
Outcome: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: In their notice 14 of settlement, the parties jointly request that the court enter an order dismissing this case without prejudice and that the dismissal be automatically converted to a dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2023. The parties' joint motion for voluntary dismissal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), is granted, and plaintiff's motion 9 for entry of an order of default is denied as moot. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Unless a motion to reinstate is filed on or before January 5, 2023, the dismissal will automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice effective January 6, 2023. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/14/2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Defendant's Attorney: Matthew John Richardson and Edward R. Peterk
Description: Chicago, Illinois consumer law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation theory seeking $15,000 in damages.
25 U.S.C. 1692 provides:
§1692. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Abusive practices
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
(b) Inadequacy of laws
Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.
(c) Available non-abusive collection methods
Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts.
(d) Interstate commerce
Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.
(e) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
§1693. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose
(a) Rights and liabilities undefined
The Congress finds that the use of electronic systems to transfer funds provides the potential for substantial benefits to consumers. However, due to the unique characteristics of such systems, the application of existing consumer protection legislation is unclear, leaving the rights and liabilities of consumers, financial institutions, and intermediaries in electronic fund transfers undefined.
(b) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund and remittance transfer systems. The primary objective of this subchapter, however, is the provision of individual consumer rights.
Outcome: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: In their notice 14 of settlement, the parties jointly request that the court enter an order dismissing this case without prejudice and that the dismissal be automatically converted to a dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2023. The parties' joint motion for voluntary dismissal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), is granted, and plaintiff's motion 9 for entry of an order of default is denied as moot. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Unless a motion to reinstate is filed on or before January 5, 2023, the dismissal will automatically convert to a dismissal with prejudice effective January 6, 2023. Civil case terminated.Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/14/2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: