Gonzalez v. Credit Protection Association, LP
1:16-cv-08683
N.D. Ill.Jun 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Alexandria Stockman and Elliott Gonzalez each received nearly identical debt-collection letters from Credit Protection Association, LP (CPA) about unpaid utility bills owed to Peoples Gas Light & Coke Company.
- Letters stated CPA could collect a state-allowed service fee and any "applicable sales tax" and could collect via draft or electronic fund transfer if a payment was returned unpaid; they warned a check maker could be subject to collection and possibly legal action.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the letters contained false, misleading, and threatening statements (Sections 1692e and 1692f).
- Plaintiffs testified they experienced stress and concern after receiving the letters; CPA moved for summary judgment and Plaintiffs cross-moved.
- Undisputed facts: neither plaintiff paid by check or owned paper checks (Gonzalez hadn’t used checks in >10 years); CPA does not pursue sales tax recovery where state law forbids it.
- The court consolidated analysis for judicial efficiency and granted CPA’s motions for summary judgment, denying Plaintiffs’ motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III) | Receipt of false/misleading letters and resulting stress/deprivation of statutory right suffice as concrete injury | Plaintiffs suffered no actual harm beyond speculative or minimal stress | Plaintiffs have standing; statutory violation + stress sufficient for Article III standing here |
| Materiality of returned-check reference | Reference to consequences of returned checks was misleading and caused stress | Reference was immaterial because neither plaintiff intended to pay by check; it did not affect their decisions | Reference immaterial; no reasonable juror could find stress was caused by returned-check language |
| Truthfulness re: "applicable sales tax" | Phrase suggested recoverable sales tax under Illinois law and was misleading | Phrase simply warned of a possible tax where state law allows; CPA does not collect taxes where illegal | Statement not false or misleading; reasonable consumer would not infer sales-tax recovery in Illinois from the language |
| Threat of legal action | "Subject to collection and possibly legal action" was a threatening, improper statement implying imminent suit | Mere mention of possible legal action is not a violation absent evidence litigation was imminent or already decided | Not threatening under §1692e; language did not indicate imminent litigation or intent to sue |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Hope Sch., 560 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard and view of record for nonmoving party)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (reasonable jury standard for summary judgment)
- Premcor USA, Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005) (construing cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Hahn v. Triumph P'ships LLC, 557 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2009) (materiality requirement in §1692e claims)
- Ruth v. Triumph P'ships, 577 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must show a false statement would mislead the unsophisticated consumer)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (concrete injury requirement for Article III standing)
- Jenkins v. Union Corp., 999 F. Supp. 1120 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (mere mention of possible litigation not an FDCPA violation absent indication litigation is imminent)
- Wright v. Calumet City, 848 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2017) (Article III case-or-controversy discussion)