principal balance” with an added statement that “this amount does
not include accrued but unpaid interest” as well as other unpaid
items. It is true that Academy's notice does not conform
precisely to the safe harbor language suggested in Miller, 214
F.3d at 876. But this Court does not understand our Court of
Appeals to have prescribed that as the exclusive means by which
the Act's requirements may be satisfied. In that respect this
Court finds the opinion of its colleague Honorable James Moran in
Taylor v. Cavalry Inv., L.L.¢., 210 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D. 111.
2002) persuasive in both its analysis and its conclusion, and it
declines the invitation of plaintiffs' counsel (crosa-motion Mem.
9n.3) to find that decision incorrect. That case is now on
appeal, and these plaintiffs' counsel (who also represented the
Taylor plaintiff) are free to do the same in these actions.
Conelugion

As stated at the outset, there is no genuine issue of
material fact in any of these actions, and Academy is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law in each. Its consolidated motion
for summary judgment is granted, the cross-metion by plaintiffs

is denied, and all three of these actions are dismissed.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 13, 2003



ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION

CREDITOR: Citibank (South Dakota) Na(P)
FWD CREDITOR:

ACCOUNT # : 5424180192511241

ACADEMY FILE # : 6816118

PRINCIPAL BAL : $5609.74

INTEREST OWING : $0.00

TOTAL BAL DUE :; $5609.74

NUMBER OF ACCTS: 1 (SMF, 445).
In each instance the standard form also included this text

sentence:

If applicable, your account may have or will accrue

interest at a rate specified in your contractual

agreement with the original creditor.

Plaintiffs' counsel attempts to latch onto the “may have”
portion of that last sentence as somehow muddying the waters.
But there is no question that even to the unsophisticated
consumer (the yardstick against which disclosures are measured
under the Act) an expreas statement that “0” interest is due and
that the “Total Bal Due” is therefore identical to the “Principal
Bal” plainly states the total amount actually due as of the date
of the letter, as required by such cases as Miller v. McCalla
Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872, 875
(7 Cir. 2000) and YVeach v. Sheeks, 316 F.3d 690 (7 Cir. 2003).

Equally importantly, that plain statement is not undercut by the
contingent (but obviously inapplicable rather than “applicable” )
language of the text sentence quoted above.

Indeed, the language here contrasts sharply with that of the

netice in Miller, which coupled a statement of the “unpaid



Manute @rder Form (OF)

A alt United States District Court, Northern District of IMinois
Name of Assigned Judge i " Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur ar hushed Sudge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 9391 DATE 5/14/2003
CASE Debra Jones vs. Academy Collection Service
TITLE

Un the following hox (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintilf, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

Motion for leave to file instanter Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support
in excess of 15 pages (original filed in 02 C 6484)

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) | Filed motion of [ usc listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Briet in support of mation due

(3) Oo Answer bricf to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due.

(4) gq Ruling/Hearing on___ set for___ at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___ssetfor at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-sct for]on__— set fort,

(7) oOo Trialfset for/re-set forfonal_

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) O ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule4i.t OCOFRCP4t(a\(1) © FRCP4{(a\(2).

qo) i [Other docket entry] Motion granted, Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. As stated at the
outset, there is no genuine issue of material fact in any of these actions, and Academy is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of'law in each. Its consolidated motion for summary judgment is granted, the cross-
motion by plaintiffs is denied, and all three of these actions are dismissed. (0-1)

dil) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

oS | Nonwtives required, advised in open coun, Docuivent

a . Number
No natices reyuired.

eur at notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff,
Notitied counsel by telephone, MAY. dota 2003

Docketing to muil notices,

o¥ | Mail AO 450 form. FILED Fas

og eay 1a GES

docighing debe

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

SN deputy’s Ct
initials 4S-iS4
-"Dateltime received in

central Clerk's Office coming deputy ina



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCKETED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION MAY 1 5 2003

DOUG A. SCHLETZ, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 6484

ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

ROBERT WEBB, etc.,

Plaintiff,

No. 02 C 6953

Vv.
ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

DEBRA JONES, etc.,

Plaintiff,

02 C 9391

Vv. No.

ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.
MO. OPINION ORDER
These three putative class actions have been brought to
charge Academy Collection Service, Inc. (“Academy”) with
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Act”),
with each plaintiff complaining that Academy's standard form of
eollection letter:

1. failed to state the amount of plaintiff's debt in



violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692q(a) (1)? and also
2. contained a false statement as to the accrual of

interest in violation of Section 1692e.
Academy has filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment, and
counsel representing all three plaintiffs have both responded to
Academy's motion and tendered their own cross-motion for summary
judgment (together with a supporting memorandum covering both
motions) .

No facts are in controversy, so the battlefield is limited
to the legal issues stemming from Academy's form of notice. Here
are the respective notices sent to plaintiffs Doug Schletz,

Robert Webb and Debra Jones:

ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION

CREDITOR: Citicorp Diners Card(S)
FWD CREDITOR:

ACCOUNT # z 386304844600001
ACADEMY FILE # : 7145266

PRINCIPAL BAL : $62.77

INTEREST OWING : $0.00
TOTAL BAL DUE : $62.77
NUMBER OF ACCTS: 1 (SMF, 415).

ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION

CREDITOR: Citicorp Diners Card(Ss)
FWD CREDITOR:

ACCOUNT # > 386304844600001
ACADEMY FILE # : 7145266

PRINCIPAL BAL :; $62.77

INTEREST OWING : $0.00

TOTAL BAL DUE ; $62.77

NUMBER OF ACCTS: 1 (SMP, 430).

+ Further citations to the Act take the form “Section --,”
omitting the prefatory “15 U.S.C.”

2