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.C., 210 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D. Ill.
2002) persuasive in both its analysis and its conclusion, and it
declines the invitation of plaintiffs' counsel (cross-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.
Conclusion

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.

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 express 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 Veach 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

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



Minute ®eder Form (06/93)
:

\)) United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois
oS)
Name of Assigned Judge ; Sitting Judge if Other
‘ or Maginate jude Milton I. Shadur than aesitmed sudge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6484 DATE 5/14/2003
CASE Doug Schletz vs. Academy Collection Service
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
of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:

Motion for leave to file instanter Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support
in excess of 15 pages

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

QB) Oo Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue____

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon___—_sset fora

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__—_—_—set for at

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on____—setfor__—at_—
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_____at

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

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

OFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a(1) CO FRCP4I(a)(2).

(io) of [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. (20-1)

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

| No notices required, advised in open court, Document

Number

No notices required.
‘ sumber of notices,

MAY 15 2003

date docketed
want

date mailed notice

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

wv | Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

a4

courtroom
SN deputy’s 1

initials tS OTE a
Ss wig eave)
entra tek oie ing depts



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ °
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS wey 122003
EASTERN DIVISION ke
DOUG A. SCHLETZ, etc.,

Plaintiff,

=
No 02 C 6484

v.
ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

ROBERT WEBB, etc.,

Plaintiff,

ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v. ) No. 02 C 6953
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEBRA JONES, etc., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)

v. ) No. 02 C 9391
)
ACADEMY COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., )
)
)

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 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
collection letter:

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

24


violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(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(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 (SMF, §15).

ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION

CREDITOR: Citicorp Diners Card(S)
FWD CREDITOR:

ACCOUNT # : 386304844600001
ACADEMY FILE # : 7145266

PRINCIPAL BAL : $62.77

INTEREST OWING : $0.00

TOTAL BAL DUE : $62.77

NUMBER OF ACCTS: 1 (SMF, $30).

1 Further citations to the Act take the form “Section --,”

omitting the prefatory “15 U.S.C.”

2