Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02898/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02898-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

*

  After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).  

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 21, 2010*

Decided January 29, 2010

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2898

LISA J. GILLARD,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ALEXANDER S. MICHALAKOS, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 6193

Charles P. Kocoras,

Judge.

O R D E R

Lisa Gillard claims that a lawyer trying to execute a judgment for unpaid rent

violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692‐1692o.  The district court

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.  We affirm that decision.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2898 Document: 21 Filed: 01/29/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐2898 Page 2

Gillard rented a Chicago condominium from Delphin and Angela Melchor.  When

she failed to pay the rent, the Melchors filed an eviction action in state court and were

awarded possession and $17,375.  More than a year later, in October 2008, Gillard brought

this lawsuit claiming that the Melchors and their lawyer, Alexander Michalakos, had

violated the FDCPA in trying to collect the judgment.  The complaint, which we accept as

true, see Lake v. Neal, 585 F.3d 1059, 1060 (7th Cir. 2009), alleges that the Melchors assaulted

Gillard on a city bus, and that Michalakos placed a lien on her bank account by serving the

bank with a citation to discover assets, see 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/2‐1402.  These actions,

according to Gillard, constituted “abusive, deceptive, and unfair” debt‐collection practices.

The Melchors were never served with process, and thus were never made parties to

the lawsuit.  See FED. R. CIV. P. 4; Leber v. Universal Music & Video Distrib., Inc., 332 F.3d 452,

454‐53 (7th Cir. 2003); Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 1997).  We need not

mention them further.  Michalakos moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a

claim.  See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).  In granting that motion, the district court reasoned that

Gillard nowhere alleges that Michalakos was acting as a “debt collector” within the

meaning of  the FDCPA, and that, at all events, his actions did not violate the statute.

On appeal Gillard principally contends that Michalakos is a debt collector and that

by placing the lien on her bank account he violated the FDCPA’s proscription against using

“unconscionable means” to collect a debt.  See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.  A lawyer’s collection

efforts can potentially lead to liability under the FDCPA, but only if the attorney qualifies as

a “debt collector” as defined in the statute.  See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6); McCready v. eBay, Inc.,

453 F.3d 882, 888 (7th Cir. 2006); Boyd v. Weber, 275 F.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2001); Jenkins v.

Heintz, 25 F.3d 536, 538 (7th Cir. 1994).  The district court concluded that Gillard’s complaint

does not allege that Michalakos was acting as debt collector; he is not explicitly described as

a “debt collector,” and neither does the complaint say that he regularly collected debts or

that the principal purpose of his law practice was to collect debts.  But whether or not

Michalakos was functioning as a “debt collector,” his use of § 5/2‐1402 to obtain a lien on

Gillard’s bank account did not violate § 1692f.  We so held in Beler v. Blatt, Hasenmiller,

Leibsker & Moore, LLC, 480 F.3d 470, 475 (7th Cir. 2007), and Gillard’s only answer to that

decision is that we should disregard it.  See also Shimek v. Weissman, Nowack, Curry, & Wilco,

P.C., 374 F.3d 1011, 1013‐14 (11th Cir. 2004).

Gillard’s remaining contentions are likewise meritless.  She insists that her complaint

states a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(7), which imposes liability if a debt collector tries to

disgrace a debtor by falsely implying or representing that he committed a crime or engaged

in other misconduct.  See McMillan v. Collection Prof’ls Inc., 455 F.3d 754, 760‐61 (7th Cir.

2006).  As the district court pointed out, nowhere in her complaint does Gillard allege that

Michalakos said or implied anything about her that was not true.  The absence of allegations

Case: 09-2898 Document: 21 Filed: 01/29/2010 Pages: 3
No. 09‐2898 Page 3

also dooms Gillard’s suggestion that her complaint accuses Michalakos of engaging in

harassing conduct, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692d, by sending his clients to assault her on the bus.

There is no hint of a connection between Michalakos and the assault.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-2898 Document: 21 Filed: 01/29/2010 Pages: 3