‘Mote Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5193 DATE 7/22/2004
CASE TREVOR VICKEY vs. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC., et al
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.]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOCKET ENTRY:
ql) a Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. Reply to answer brief due
(4) a Ruling/Hcaringon 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 :
(7) im 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]
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)\(1) CM FRCP41(a\(2).
(0) of [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Defendant Asset Acceptance’s
motion for summary judgment as to count IV is granted.
di) [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required.
umber of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. J
Notified counsel by telephone. ue 3 2004
) ce. date dockets
oY | Docketing to mail notices. Vy
_g7| Mail 80 450 form,
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
date maied notice
courtroom
LG deputy's
initials x
ife/titne received
central Clerk's Office, mang depaty initials
=a



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

EASTERN DIVISION
TREVOR VICKEY, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. No, 03 C 5193 JUL 23 2008
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; and }
MC MAHAN & SIGUNICK, LTD., )
Defendants. ;

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On July 1, 2004, we granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to counts I,
If and III of plaintiff's complaint. In doing so we neglected to discuss count IV, an individual
claim against defendant Asset Acceptance alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1692e (FDCPA). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion for
summary judgment as to count IV is granted.

The FDCPA provides that “a debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692e. Plaintiff claims that Asset Acceptance misrepresented plaintiff's date of delinquency
by reporting the date that it opened the account rather than the date that the account was
charged off by Discover. Plaintiff claims that such a practice could lead to the delinquency
remaining on his credit record for more than seven years. He also argues that Asset Acceptance
reported conflicting data to Experion and to other credit agencies.

The plaintiff produces no evidence supporting this claim other than the affidavit of

Richard Le Febvre. Le Febvre admits, however, that he has not scen all of the relevant


No. 03 C 5193 Page 2

documentation and does not understand the coding used by the credit services. The documents
that he relied on in reaching his conclusions have not been offered into evidence or disclosed
to the court. Asset Acceptance claims that it asked the major credit reporters to delete
plaintiff's account; Le Febvre acknowledges that he cannot tell whether or not this was done.
While he states that a number of dates appear in plaintiff’s credit reports, there is nothing to
indicate in what documents these dates are located or what they are intended to refer to.
Plaintiff also produces nothing to contradict Asset Acceptance’s argument that it was asked by
Experion to report the date that the account was assigned, rather than the date of original
delinquency. In the absence of any documentation showing that defendants actually reported
incorrect dates or information to the credit agencies, plaintiff fails to create an issue of material
fact as to count IV.

Finally, there is no indication that the dates used by Asset Acceptance had any effect on
the attempt to collect plaintiff’s debt. While statutory damages may be awarded even in the
absence of actual harm to the plaintiff (see Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497, 499 (7 Cir. 1997)),
there must be some indication that the defendant actually violated the statute by using a
misrepresentation in connection with the collection of a debt. There is no indication that any
“re-aging” affected the plaintiff’s rights in any way.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant Asset Acceptance’s motion for summary judgment

permag B. Mergen

S| JAMES B. MORAN
Se

ior Judge, U. S. District Court
we QD, 2004.

as to count IV is granted,