Jaber v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC, 1:14-cv-07374

Multiple consolidated suits challenge debt collectors for obtaining default judgments in Cook County courthouses distant from plaintiffs’ residences, alleging FDCPA and ICFA violations.
Ketchum sued Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC under the FDCPA §1692i(a)(2) for filing in a Cook County division farther from her home; underlying collection suit was filed Sept. 11, 2013; Ketchum filed federal suit Oct. 20, 2014.
Jaber and Ratcliff brought near-identical suits: FDCPA claims (Counts I–II) and an Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claim (Count III) alleging defendants Atlantic Credit and Cavalry filed in the Daley Center rather than the courthouses closer to plaintiffs.
Defendants moved to dismiss: Freedman/Portfolio argued Ketchum’s FDCPA claim was time-barred; Atlantic and Cavalry moved to dismiss the ICFA counts for failure to plead an unfair or deceptive act and other independent grounds.
The court consolidated the matters for adjudication and addressed whether the FDCPA limitations period begins when the collection action is filed and whether filing in a then-lawful forum can constitute an ICFA deception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the FDCPA §1692k(d) one-year limitations period begin for a §1692i(a)(2) venue claim?	Ketchum: limitations run from later litigation acts (e.g., default judgment or subsequent post-judgment motion), so her Oct. 2014 suit is timely.	Freedman/Portfolio: the violation occurs when the collection action is filed (or when complaint is served); limitations begins then.	Court: limitations began when the litigation began (filing Sept. 11, 2013); Ketchum’s Oct. 20, 2014 claim is time-barred; dismissal with prejudice.
Whether filing a collection suit in a Cook County division that was then-authorized constitutes an "unfair or deceptive" practice under the ICFA.	Jaber/Ratcliff: filing in a more distant Daley Center rather than the nearer division is unfair/deceptive and supports an ICFA claim.	Atlantic/Cavalry: the forum choice was lawful under then-governing precedent (Newsome); such lawful litigation conduct is not the kind of deception the ICFA proscribes.	Court: dismissed Count III for failure to plead an unfair or deceptive act; filing in a then-authorized venue, without fabrication or false statements about the debt, does not state an ICFA claim.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard)
Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (12(b)(6) standard discussion)
Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, 757 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. reinterpretation of “judicial district” and retroactivity allowing FDCPA claims)
Newsome v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. precedent construing judicial district as any Cook County district prior to Suesz)
Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (elements required for ICFA claim)
Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. authority on when FDCPA violation occurs)
Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. authority on commencement of FDCPA limitations period)
Grant-Hall v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, 856 F. Supp. 2d 929 (ICFA liability where collector fabricated or misrepresented collection rights)