sn re 06 =~ i)
“ United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name ain ode John W. Darrah Siting ae Ones
CASE NUMBER 03 C7211 DATE 2/26/2004
CASE Shanahan vs. Porick
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) Qo Answer brief to motiondue__. Reply to answer briefdue____.
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on setfor att
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on setfor___—__at.
(6) ia Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on setfor sat.
(©) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_at
(8) Q (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 C'FRCP41(a)(1) OFRCP41(a)(2).
qo) @ [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 4/22/04 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant to file

an answer to the complaint by 3/25/04. For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum opinion and
order, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.

al) of

No notices required, advised in open court.

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

Document® *.:'?
Number \

No notices required. umber of notices

. FEB 2 7 2004

date docketed

Notices mailed by judge's staff,
Notified counsel by telephone.

wf | Docketing to mail notices.

IQ

Mail AO 450 form. Le909 LIMISIA ‘sq ocketing deputy initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. nn
ce
courtroom ~
MF deputy’s .
initials ee
+ Sd =" \ = Dato/time received in
central Clerk's Office



“

an A

TM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Dock ETED
EASTERN DIVISION FT
27 204
MARY E. SHANAHAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 03 C 7211
v. )
) Judge John W. Darrah
DENNIS B. PORICK, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Mary E. Shanahan, filed suit against Defendant, Dennis B. Porick, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) based on
alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Installment Loan Act (“ICILA”) and/or the linois Sales
Finance Agency Act (“ISFAA”). Presently pending before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss.

A reading of the Complaint supports the following summary of the alleged operative conduct
of the parties.

Asset Acceptance, LLC acquired Shanahan’s debts after the original creditor charged off the
debts. Asset Acceptance is in the business of buying bad debts allegedly owed by consumers. Asset
Acceptance is not chartered or regulated as a bank, savings and loan association, or credit union and
does not hold a license under the ICILA or ISFAA.

Porick, an attorney for Asset Acceptance, attempted to collect from Shanahan two old credit
card debts from Citibank and Providian, plus interest on such debts at 20% and 15% for the period
after Asset Acceptance acquired the debts.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court reviews all facts alleged in the complaint and any



¢ o a

__/Feasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Marshall-
Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000) (Marshall-Mosby). A
plaintiff is not required to plead the facts or the elements of a claim, with the exceptions found in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002);
Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002). A filing under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure should be “short and plain,” and it suffices if it notifies the defendant of the principal
events. Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003). Dismissal is warranted only if “it
appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The simplified notice
pleading requirement relies upon liberal discovery and summary judgment motions to define
disputed issues and facts and to dispose of unmeritorious claims. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 513.

Porick argues that Shanahan’s Complaint should be dismissed because the Illinois Interest

Act does not apply and because Shanahan fails to plead her agreements or the agreed interest with

Citibank and Providian. Shanahan counters that the Illinois Interest Act applies and that Porick’s

violation of the Act constitutes a violation of the FDCPA. Shanahan’s Complaint sufficiently pleads

that the interest rate charged by Porick violated the Illinois Interest Act, and such violation
constitutes a violation of the FDCPA.

Porick’s, as well as Shanahan’s, legal arguments are more properly decided after discovery.

For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dj

Dated: 4% 2004

States District Judge