Minate Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Matthew F. Kennelly

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 1017 DATE 9/23/2003
CASE Smith vs. GC Services
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing(held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(ea) Qo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) ao (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) {FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] _ For the reasons set forth on the attached order, the Court grants plaintiff's

motion for reconsideration (24-1). The judgment entered by the Court on 8/27/03 is vacated. The case

is reinstated. A status hearing is set for 10/6/03 at 9:30 a.m. to address how the case should proceed from

here.
d1) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

date mailed notice
courtroom

deputy’s
initials

OR

Datesime received jn, <'
central Cleitc's Office.) 3

rmaling depory iniials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
CECIL SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 03 C 1017
)
GC SERVICES, L.P.; DLS ENTERPRISES, )
INC.; and GC FINANCIAL CORP., ) Q
Defendants. ) Sé&p 2 ED
52
003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

On August 25, 2003, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in this
action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Court’s decision is reported at 2003
WL 22012229. Familiarity with that decision is assumed.

Plaintiff Cecil Smith has moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Court erred in
interpreting the statement in defendant GC Services’ dunning letter that the stated “balance due”
might not include “accrued but unposted interest.” We believed that the term referred to “future
interest accruing prior to payment,” which was likely to be an insignificant item. This belief was
a material aspect of our conclusion that the letter correctly stated “the balance due as of the date
of the letter.”

Smith points out that the use of the term “accrued” ordinarily would be expected to refer

not to future interest, but to interest that had already accrued. Upon further reflection, the Court

7

agrees with Smith and therefore concludes that we made an unwarranted assumption in



interpreting the letter.

This does not, however, entitle Smith to entry of summary judgment in his favor. The
parties offer two possibilities for what GC meant when it used the term “accrued but unposted
interest.” Smith argues that the term referred to interest that had accrued prior to the date of the
letter which the debtor already owed but which was not included in the “balance due.” GC
argues that it referred not to interest that had accrued as of the date of the letter, but to interest
that accrued between the time the letter was sent and its receipt by Smith. On the present record,
we cannot say which (if either) of these possibilities is correct, as the parties have offered no
evidence on the point. Nor are we in a position to determine whether the amount of “accrued but
unposted interest” was at all significant in dollar terms. Without evidence on these points, the
Court must conclude that genuine issues of material fact remain and that neither side is entitled to
summary judgment. Smith is, however, entitled to an order vacating the entry of judgment
against him.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs motion for reconsideration
[docket #24-1]. The judgment entered by the Court on August 27, 2003 is vacated. The case is
reinstated. A status hearing is set for October 6, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to address how the case

should proceed from here.

UU

MATTHEW F. KENNELL
United States District Judg
Date: September 23, 2003