United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois (9)

Mofecesintiniee | James B. Moran | Stn Sade ter

CASE NUMBER 02 C 6746 DATE 12/24/2002
CASE Peter Bennett vs. Arrow Financial Services LLC
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:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) oa Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) Qo Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon_—_ssetfor_—_at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__setfor__——sat_
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on__at
8) O {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) C)Local Rule 41.1. OOFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

qo) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant moves to dismiss. That
motion is granted, but with leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days.

(11) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)
No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

number of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. DEG 2 § 200

Notified counsel by telephone. te docfed

vo | Docketing to mail notices.

V_| Mail Ao 450 form. 1809 Loty (sia's'n

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

glock ty inti

Bh s2ihd 20300

date mailed notice

courtroom
ws eae OL 03-074
Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office ‘mailing deputy initials



“

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

EASTERN DIVISION
PETER BENNETT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 02 CV 6746
v. } Honorable Judge Moran

)
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC)

: DOCKETED

Defendant. ) DEC 2 6 2002

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff complains that defendant kept trying to collect a stale debt after plaintiff asked
for verification in a telephone conversation, and that defendant discussed the matter with
plaintifP's wife. He claims those actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, without
specifying the sections. Defendant moves to dismiss. That motion is granted, but with leave to
file an amended complaint within 28 days.

Defendant correctly notes that if the claimed violations are failing to cease collection
efforts and discussing the matter with plaintiff's wife, the allegations are deficient because
ceasing the efforts became an obligation only after the alleged debtor has notified the defendant
in writing and communications with a spouse are not communications with a third-party for
purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(b). Undoubtedly, recognizing the force of those contentions,
plaintiff now recasts his theory, arguing that five plus telephone calls on September 10, 2002,

were harassment violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. And possibly (we do not now consider the matter)



plaintiff can state a claim that defendant intended to annoy, abuse or harass him by making the
calls, But that is not what the present complaint alleges.

Atreg 8, Moron,

JAMES B. MORAN
Seniof Judge, U. S. District Court

Qe.r4 , 2002.

C:\wptext\Opinion\Bennett02c6746.wpd