UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DONNA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, No. 02 C 0786
vs. Judge Moran
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C. a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Magistrate Bobrick

Defendant.

To: David Phillips

Gomolinski & Phillips, Ltd.

8855 S. Roberts Road

Hickory Hills, IL 60457

REQUEST TO ADMIT

Pursuant to FRCP 36, within 30 days hereof you are requested to admit the truth of the following
facts:

4. That at the time of filing the Complaint herein Plaintiff had no expert testimony indicating that
Ex. “A”, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint was confusing.

2. That at the time of filing the Complaint herein Plaintiff had any objective observers, other than
the Plaintiff, indicating that Ex. “A” attached to Plaintiff's Complaint was confusing.

3. That at the time of filing the Complaint herein, Plaintiff had no evidence in the form of survey,

evidence or testimony indicating that Ex. “A”, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint was confusing.

» CBRL

Robert Cybak for
wiv Simpson & Cyba
Attorney for Cav: nvestment, L.L.C.

Ex."C"



2 3506
Tense
Cee
adress Service nequested Pines ainda be]
P.O. BOX 80127
PHOENIX, AZ 85060
February 23, 2001 (602) 667-0128
ACCT# 00194909
REF = OSI- BANK ONE
DONNA T TAYLOR LOAN# 851100000037863
7354 S KING DR ;
#1 PRINCIPAL BALANCE = 1,802.90
CHICAGO, IL 60619-1728 INTEREST $ 511.23
Huileadfassallcsos fanaa leadecaddedatalel ACCRUED INTEREST = § 0.00

$ 0.00
TOTAL.BALANCE DUE $ 2,314.13
Dear DONNA T TAYLOR:
” CavalryTivestmerts, LEC purchased your account from OSt- BANK ONED 7" oe
It Is important that you:

3 CONTACT US TO ARRANGE REPAYMENT TERMS.

3K FORWARD ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN ORDER TO
INSURE PROPER CREDIT AND AVOID DELAYS IN PAYMENT POSTING

You may speak to an Account Representative to resolve your account by calling MR-HAERTEL @ 1-888-689-7256. Act now
to satisfy this debt.

Uniess you notify us In writing within thirty (80) days after the recelpt of this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt or.
any portion thereof, this office will assume the debt Is valid.

If you notify us In.writing- within thirty (80) days after the recelpt of this notice that you.dispute the debt or any portion
thereof, we val obtalin- verification ofthe debt or we will mail you a copy of the judgment.

if you request in writing within thirty (30) days after the receipt of this notice, the name-and address of the original creditor
wilt be provided to you.

YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE MAY BE PERIODICALLY INCREASED DUE TO THE ADDITION OF ACCRUED INTEREST OR
OTHER CHARGES AS PROVIDED.IN YOUR AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CREDITOR.

THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED.WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS
COMMUNICATION 1S FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.

~---GEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT. INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR RIGHTS. - -

DONNA T TAYLOR
7354 S KING DR

#1 ii
CHICAGO, IL 60619-1728 ast SEe TF et K ONE
LOAN# 851 100000037863

Re PRINCIPAL BALANCE $ 1,802.90

Pee i ah ACCRUED INTEREST 55 *\Nb0

OTHER CHARGES $ 0.00 EXHIBIT
CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC TOTAL BALANCE DUE $ 2,314.13 ii

P.O, BOX 80127
PHOENIX, AZ 85060

Hababelellscealdeddl

Enter Amount Enclosed: $.

seadlabtladdsels

JLOD,CiL.008.2,02/22/018.00060 4a


10.

il.

12.

regarding the collection of a debt. (Compl 4 8; Ans. 48).

CAVALRY’ initial communication letter contained the statutorily required validation notice. (Compl
19; Ans. $9).

Section 1692g(a)(1) of the FOCPA requires that a debt collector provide the consumer with statement
of the “amount of the debt”, (Compl § 12; Ans. § 12).

The statements in collection letter sent by CAVALRY are to be interpreted under the “unsophisticated
consumer” standard. (Compl { 6; Ans. { 6); (Compl { 11; Ans. q 11).

On March 14, 2002, CAVALRY served TAYLOR with Requests to Admit Facts pursuant to FRCP
36. (A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”).

TAYLOR failed to deny or otherwise object to any of CAVALRY’s Requests with in the 30 day
period proscribed by FRCP 36. Consequently, the factual Propositions set forth in CAVALRY’s
Requests are admitted, and conclusively established. FRCP 36; Mangan v. Broderick & Bascom
Rope Co. 351 F.2d 24 (7" Cir, 1965),

CAVALRY ’s Requests to Admit Facts conclusively establishes the following:

a. That at the time of filing the complaint herein Plaintiff had no expert testimony indicating that
Ex, “A”, attached to Plaintiff's complaint, i.c., CAVALRY’s collection letter, was confusing.

b. That at the time of filing the complaint herein Plaintiff had no objective observers, other than
the Plaintiff, indicating that CAVALRY’s collection letter was confusing.

. That at the time of filing the complaint herein, plaintiff had no evidence in the form of. survey

evidence or testimony indicating that CAVALRY’s collection letter was confusing.

CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC

AGL

David Cybak, for Ro Cybak & Associates,
Attorneys for CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC



PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

|, Robert Cybak, an attomey, certify that | served this Request to Admit, to the foregoing

postage prepaid on March 14, 2002.

Robert Cybak

Robert Cybak for

Simpson & Cybak
ARDC#0566969

33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1930
Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 236-3580


10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19,

overshadcws and renders the validation notice ineffective, and that it confuses an
unsophisticated consumer as to whether he must act immediately or surrender the right to
have the debt validated within 30 days; CAVALRY denies its letter violates §1692g.
CAVALRY denies the legal conclusions in paragraph 10, and each of them.

COUNT II
CAVALRY re-states and adopts by reference herein its prior answers to paragraphs 1-6 OF
Count | as its answer to paragraph 11 of Count Il.
CAVALRY admits §1692g(a){1) of the FDCPA requires a statement of the “amount of the
debt.” CAVALRY admits its collection letter contains the language alleged. CAVALRY
denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 and each of them. CAVALRY denies that
the cases cited in paragraph 12 are factually similar to the case at bar, or support plaintiff's
proposition in paragraph 12.
CAVALRY denies the legal conclusions in paragraph 13, and each of them.
CAVALRY admits that plaintiff brings this action individually and purportedly on behalf of
similarly situated persons in Illinois from whom CAVALRY attempted to collect debts

originally due BANK ONE, and that plaintiff is seeking a declaration and damages under
§1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

CAVALRY admits the allegations in paragraph 15.

CAVALRY neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 16 for lack of knowledge
or information, and demands proof thereof.

CAVALRY neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 17 for lack of knowledge
or information, and demands proof thereof.

CAVALRY neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 18 for lack of knowledge
or information, and demands-proof thereof.

CAVALRY neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 19 for lack of knowledge

or information, and demands proof thereof.


‘Defendant's demand that Plaintiff “[aJct now to satisfy this debt" overshadows, and thus
renders ineffective, the validation notice because it confuses unsophisticated
consumers as to whether they must act immediately, i.e., “now”, or whether they have
30 days to dispute the validity of the alleged debt. (See, Bartlett, 128 F.3d at 501;
Chauncey, 118 F.3d at 519; Avila, 84 F.3d at 226). Defendant's collection letter thus
violates §1692g of the FDCPA.

10. Defendant's violation of §1692g of the FDCPA renders it liable for
statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. (See, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k).

COUNT II
Violation of § 1692g(a)(1) —
Failure to State Adequately the Amount of the Debt

11. Plaintiff adopts and realleges {J 1-6.

12. Section 1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA requires that a debt collector provide
the consumer with a statement of the amount of the debt. Although Cavairy’s form debt
collection letter states, a “TOTAL BALANCE DUE” of $2,314.13, it then later states that
“YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE MAY BE PERIODICALLY INCREASED DUE TO THE
ADDITION OF ACCRUED INTEREST OR OTHER CHARGES...”. Thus, a consumer
has no idea of the amount of the debt Defendant is attempting to collect because the
letter fails to inform the consumer whether the "TOTAL BALANCE DUE" is as of the

date of the letter, and fails to inform the consumer of the date from which the additional

interest or other charges are accruing. (See, Miller Vv McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb,
Nichols, and Clark, L.L.C. 214 F.3d. 872 (7" Cir. 2000); Miller v. McCalla, Raymer,

Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, and Clark, L.L.C., 198 F.R.D. 503 (N.D.IIl. 2001); Wilkerson v.



Pettit, a plaintiff must present expert testimony, the opinions of an objective observer, or survey
evidence or testimony tending to show that a significant fraction of the population would be confused.
Id. A plaintiff who offers nothing more than their own testimony that they were confused bya
collection letter does not create a genuine issue for trial, and on this basis alone, summary judgment
is proper. Id.

3. In the case at bar, TAYLOR admits that she has no expert testimony indicating that CAVALRY’s
collection letter, was confusing. She has no objective observers, other than the herself, indicating that
CAVALRY’s collection letter was confusing. Further, she has no survey evidence or testimony
indicating that CAVALRY’s collection letter was confusing. From TAYLOR’s admissions, it is
apparent that the only evidence she has indicating that CAVALRY’s collection letter was confusing
is her own self-serving testimony that she was confused by the letter. Under Petit, TAYLOR fails to
create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a significant fraction of the population would have
been confused by CAVALRY’s letter. Consequently, TAYLOR cannot possibly establish that
CAVALRY’s collection letter is likely to confuse the “unsophisticated consumer” to withstand

Summary Judgment. On this basis alone, summary judgment must be granted.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, LLC , respectfully requests that Summary

Judgment be entered in its favor on Counts I and II under Rule 56.

“AE LLC
AD f

David Cybak, for nobel Cybak & Associates,
Attorneys for CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tte TE
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS May” 7]
EASTERN DIVISION “9 aH 2
DONNA T. TAYLOR, individually and on )
behalf of all others similarly situated, y
)
Plaintiff, ) F l L E D
) No. 02 C 0786
v. ) MAY 08 2002
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C,, a ) Judge Moran
Delaware Limited Liability Company, ) MICHAEL yy. Doran,
) Magistrate Bobrick CLERK, U.S. DistaIcT coupe
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
AND ARGUMENT.

Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1{a)(2), and in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant,

CAVALRY states as follows:

1.

Both counts of TAYLOR’s complaint seek recovery on the basis that CAVALRY’s collection letter
violates the FDCPA because it is likely to confuse the “unsophisticated consumer”.
The Seventh Circuit has held that the issue of confusion is a question of fact, not a question of law.

Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F3d 497, 501 (7" Cir. 1997). Ona motion for summary judgment, this means

that the plaintiff must offer some evidence that creates a triable issue as to whether the collection letter

is likely to confuse the “unsophisticated debtor”. Johnson v. Revenue Management Corp., 167 F.3d

1057, 1060 (7* Cir. 1999; Walker v. National Recovery, Inc., 200 F3d 500 (7" Cir. 1999). Under

the unsophisticated debtor standard, a statement will not be confusing or misleading unless a
significant fraction of the population would similarly be misled. Pettit _v. Retrieval Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc., 211 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir 2000). An FDCPA plaintiff must therefore
present some evidence that the letter would confuse a significant fraction of the population. To prevail
at the summary judgment stage, an FDCPA plaintiff must do more than merely speculate about how
a naive debtor would interpret the letter. Id. at 1061. A plaintiff's own self serving deposition
testimony that the letter was confusing does not create a genuine issue as to whether others in that

population would believe the same thing. Id at 1062. Instead to create a genuine issue for tria!, under


WHEREFORE, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C. requests this Honcrable Courtto deny plaintiffany
of the relief requested in sections 1 through 5, inclusive, of the prayer for relief, to dismiss plaintiff's claims,

and to assess costs thereof to plaintiff.

Robert Cybak, for ( /
Robert Cybak & Asstefates

Robert Cybak, #0566969

Robert Cybak & Associates

Attomeys for CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C.
33 N. LaSalle, Suite 1930

Chicago, IL 60602-2603

(312) 236-3580


4. Defendant, Cavalry Investments, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company (“Cavalry”), which acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a of the
FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails to collect, or attempt to collect, consumer
debts in the Northern District of Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Defendant sent Plaintiff Taylor an initial form collection letter, dated
February 23, 2001, demanding payment for a consumer debt that she allegedly owed
originally to Bank One. This letter was sent within one year of this Complaint and is
attached as Exhibit A.

6. The statements in Defendant's form collection letter are to be interpreted
under the “unsophisticated consumer’ standard. (See, Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497,

500 (7th Cir. 1997); Chauncey v. JDR, 118 F.3d 516, 519 (7th Cir. 1997); Avila v.
Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 226 (7th Cir. 1996)).
COUNT I
Violation of § 1692g —
_ Overshadowing the Validation Notice

7. Plaintiff adopts and realleges {J 1-6.

8. Section 1692g of the FDCPA requires that Defendant's first communication to a
consumer include an effective validation notice, i.e., notice that the consumer has 30 days to
tequest, in writing, that the debt collector provide proof of the debt’s validity to the consumer.

9. Although Defendant's initial form collection letter contained the statutorily
required notice, other language in Defendant's form debt collection letter

overshadowed, and thus rendered ineffective, the validation notice. Specifically,


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DONNA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 02 C 0786
vs. )
) Judge Moran
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., a Delaware )
Limited Liability Company, ) Magistrate Bobrick
)
Defendant. ) -

VWFILED

NOTICE OF FILING
To: David Phillips

Gomolinski & Phillips, Ltd. MAY © 8 2002
8855 S. Roberts Rd.
Hickory Hills, 1L 60457 MICHAEL W. DogBINS

CLERK, U.S, DISTRICT COURT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 8, 2002, Defendant, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., by its

attomeys, filed the following documents with the Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Iilinois,
Eastern Division:

+ Motion for Summary Judgment

CAVALI IVESTM LLG.

By:

David Cybak, for
Robert Cybak & ociates
David Cybak, #6273823
Robert Cybak & Associates
Attorneys for CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C.
33 N. LaSalle, Suite 1930
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 236-3580

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

|, David Cybak, the attorney, certify that | served this Notice by mailing a copy to the above-stated
addressee(s) at the above-stated address(es) and depositing the same in the U.S. Mail at 33 N. LaSalle

Street, Chicago, IL at 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2002 with proper pj TL
i,

Yr
papoose



would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to the individual
members of the Class, and a risk that any adjudications with respect to individual
members of the Class would, as a practical matter, either be dispositive of the interests
of other members of the Class not party to the adjudication, or substantially impair or
impede their ability to protect their interests. Defendant has acted in a manner
applicable to the Class as a whole such that declaratory relief is warranted.

19. Plaintiff Taylor will fairly and adequately protect and represent the
interests of the Class. The management of the class action proposed is not
extraordinarily difficult, and the factual and legal issues raised by this class action
complaint will not require extended contact with the members of the Class because
Defendant's conduct was perpetrated on all members of the Class and will be
established by common proof. Moreover, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in
class action litigation, including class actions brought under the FDCPA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Donna T. Taylor prays that this Court:

1. Certify this action as a class action;

2. Appoint Donna T. Taylor as representative of the class, and her attorneys
as class counsel;

3. Deciare that the form of Defendant's collection letter violates the FDCPA;

4. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and'the Class, and against Defendant,

for statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by § 1692k(a)

of the FDCPA; and,

5. Grant such further relief as deemed just.

5


Bowman, 200 F.R.D. 605 (N.D.111. 2001)). Defendant's form debt collection letter thus
violates § 1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA.

13. Defendant's violation of §1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA renders it liable for
statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. (See, 15 U.S.C. § 4692k).

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

14. Plaintiff, Donna T. Taylor, brings this action individually and as a class action
on behaif of all similarly situated Illinois residents from whom Defendant attempted to
collect a consumer debt, allegedly owed originally to Bank One, from one year before the
date of this Complaint to the present, via the same form collection letter it sent Plaintiff,
which is attached as Exhibit A. This action seeks a declaration that the form of
Defendant's collection letter violates the FDCPA, and asks that the Court award damages
as authorized by § 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA.

15. Defendant regularly engages in debt collection using the same form letter
received by Plaintiff in its attempts to collect from other persons.

16. The Class consists of more than 35 persons from whom Defendant
attempted to collect consumer debts by sending other consumers the same form letter it
sent Plaintiff Taylor.

17. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Common questions of
law or fact raised by this class action complaint affect all members of the Class and

y3(Db)predominate over any individual’ issues. Common relief is therefore sought on behalf of all
members of the Class. This class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

18. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class

FBOUDA\+B)


JAN 31 2002
iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINCIS

MICHAEL W. Buwesis
EASTERN DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Donna T. Taylor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

)
}
v. } No. 020 07 Qe
)
)
)

Cavalry Investment, LLC, a Delaware
JUDGE MORAN

limited liability company,
Jury Demanded
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT =3¢ gTRATE SUD
‘MAGI

Defendant. ce poprick
Plaintiff, Donna T. Taylor, individually and on behaif of all others similarly
situated, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1692, et sea. ("FDCPA"), for a declaration that the form of Defendant's debt collection
letter violates the FDCPA, and to recover damages by reason of Defendant's violations
of the FDCPA, and alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked as authorized by § 1692k(d) of the
FDCPA, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions
occurred here, Plaintiff resides here, and Defendant transacts business here.
3. Plaintiff, Donna T. Taylor, is a citizen of the State of Illinois residing in the

Northern District of Illinois from whom Defendant attempted to collect a consumer debt

| Ex. A’

allegedly owed originally to "Bank One".


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

EASTERN DIVISION
DONNA T. TAYLOR, individually andon +)
behalf of all others similarly situated, )
) FILED
Plaintiff, ) TM
) No. 02.€0786 MAY 0-8 2069
v. ) 82
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., a ) Judge Moran MICHag
Delaware Limited Liability Company, ) CLERK, Ug pi Done
) Magistrate Bobrick » PISTRET CouRT
Defendant. )

LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE

Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) and in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, CAVALRY

states that there are no genuine issues as to the following material facts:

1.

The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked as authorized by § 1692k(d) of the FDCPA, and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (Compl. 73, Ans. 73).

Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions occurred here, TAYLOR resides here
and CAVALRY transacts business here. (Compl. 2, Ans. 2).

TAYLOR is a citizen of the State of Illinois residing in the Northern District of Illinois from whom
CAVALRY attempted to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to BANK ONE. (Compl. 3, Ans.
43)

CAVALRY is a Delaware limited liability company which acts as a “debt collector” as defined by
1692(a) of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails to collect, or attempt to collect, consumer
debts. (Compl { 4; Ans. 4).

CAVALRY sent TAYLOR an initial form collection letter dated February 23, 2001 demanding
payment for a consumer debt that she allegedly owed originally to BANK ONE. (Compl { 5; Ans. |
5). (A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit “A” to plaintiff's complaint).

Section 1692 of the FDCPA requires a validation notice in the first communication to a debtor


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE
Donna T. Taylor, individually and on behalf O28 2 C 0 4 8. 6

of all others similarly situated, Docket Number:

Plaintiff, Assigned Judge; VUDGE MORAN

|
|
| EFS
Designated

|

|

|

. Magistrate Jud(tAGISTRATE JUDGE BOBRICK

Cavalry Investment, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
Defendant

TO: Cavalry Investment, LLC

C/O Any officer, director or other person
authorized to accept service of process
3033 N. 44" Street

Suite 330

Phoenix, AZ 85018

Att: Andrew Zaro, President and CEO

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY:

David J. Philipps
Gomolinski & Philipps, Ltd.
8855 S. Roberts Road
Hickory Hills, Illinois 60457
(708) 974-2900

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of
this summons upon you exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the domplaint. You must also file your
answer with the Clerk of this Court withifi a reasonable period of time after service.

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS JAN 3.1 2007
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk Date

DONNA DRAG
(by) Deputy Clerk



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

RECEIVED

DONNA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

No. o2zco7es FEB 28 2002

Judge Moran

vs,

CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., a Delaware Mi

Limited Liability Company,

Magistrate Bobricit=*4

Defendant.

ANSWER

Defendant, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C. (“CAVALRY”), in Answer to plaintiffs Complaint, states

as follows:

1. CAVALRY admits this Courts jurisdiction.

2. CAVALRY admits the allegations in paragraph 2.

3. CAVALRY admits the allegations in paragraph 3.

4, CAVALRY admits the allegations in paragraph 4.

5. CAVALRY admits sending plaintiff a collection letter dated February 23, 2001 demanding
payment of a consumer debt plaintiff owned BANK ONE. CAVALRY admits the remaining
allegation in paragraph 5.

6. CAVALRY admits the unsophisticated consumer standard is applied in the 7" Circuit.

COUNT I

7 CAVALRY re-states and adopts by reference herein its prior answers to paragraphs 1-6, as
its answer to paragraph 7.

8. CAVALRY admits that §1692g of the FDCPA requires a validation notice in the first
communication to a debtor regarding collection of the debt.

9. CAVALRY admits its initial communication letter contains the statutorily required validation

notice; CAVALRY denies other language in its collection letter overshadowed the validation

notice rendering it ineffective; CAVALRY denies that “act now to satisfy this debt"


FDCPA because the letter fails to “state the amount of the debt”, TAYLOR contends that although
the letter states a “TOTAL BALANCE DUE” of $2,314.13, the letter then later states that “YOUR
ACCOUNT BALANCE MAY BE PERIODICALLY INCREASED DUE TO THE ADDITION OF

ACCRUED INTEREST OR OTHER CHARGES.” Plaintiff contends that an “unsophisticated

consumer” is likely to be confused by the letter because they would have no idea of the amount of the
debt defendant is attempting to collect because the letter fails to inform the consumer whether the
“TOTAL BALANCE DUE” is as of the date of the letter, and further, the letter does not state from
what date these additional interest or other charges are accruing,

7. The pleadings, together with the admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact, and that CAVALRY is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, LLC, respectfully requests that Summary

Judgment be entered in its favor on Counts I and II under Rule 56.

CAVALRY INVE! ay
By: ve

David Cybak, for robert ‘ybak & Associates,
Attorneys for CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC

DAVID CYBAK, ARDC # 6273823
Robert Cybak & Associates
Attorneys for CAVALRY

33 N. LaSalle, 1930

Chicago, IL 60602

312-236-3580


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Pt Yop
EASTERN DIVISION LTD T, ER
DONNA T. TAYLOR, individually and on “8 bop
behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Judge Moran

MAY @ 8 2002
Magistrate Bobrick

)

)

) No. 020786 c=
FILED
)

)

)

MICHAEL W. DORBINS
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., (“CAVALRY”), by its attomeys, Robert Cybak &

Defendant.

Associates, moves for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff, DONNA T. TAYLOR, (“TAYLOR”) pursuant

to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in support thereof, states as follows:

1, On January 31, 2002, TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a
two-count class action complaint against CAVALRY. (A Copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit
“A”),

2. Both counts of TAYLOR’s complaint allege that a collection letter she received from CAVALRY
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).,

3. On February 28, 2002, CAVALRY filed its Answer to TAYLOR’s complaint. (A Copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “B”),

4, In Count I, TAYLOR contends that although CAVALRY’s collection letter contained the “validation
notice” required by § 1692g of the FDCPA, additional language “overshadowed” the validation notice
and rendered it ineffective because it confuses an “unsophisticated consumer” as to whether they must
act immediately or whether they have 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt.

5. The additional language TAYLOR contends overshadows the validation notice is: “act now to satisfy
this debt”.

6. In Count H, TAYLOR contends that CAVALRY’s collection letter violates § 1692g(a)(1) of the

\


JURY DEMAND

Donna T. Taylor demands trial by jury.

Donna T, Taylor, individually and on
behaif of all others similarly si

One of PlaiptirS Attorne
Dated: January 31, 2002

David J. Philipps

Mary E. Philipps
Gomolinski & Philipps, Ltd.
8855 S. Roberts Road
Hickory Hills, Illinois 60457
(708) 974-2900

(708) 974-2907 (FAX)


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINCIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DONNA TAYLOR, individually and on behaif of all
others similarly situated,

REO te .

Plaintiffs,

- No. 0200768 FEB 28 2002

Judge Moran MICH Ace eS
CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., a Delaware CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Limited Liability Company, Magistrate Bobrick

)
)
)
)
)
vs. )
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF FILING
To: David J. Philipps
Mary E. Phillips
Gomolinski & Phillips, Ltd.

8855 S. Roberts Rd.
Hickory Hills, IL 60457

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 28, 2002, CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C., filed with the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the following

document(s) in the above-captioned case, a copy of which is attached:

. Answer

By:.
Robert CybaK,
For Rabert Cybak & AeSociates

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

1, Robert Cybak, an attorney, certify that | served a copy of the above described documents(s) upon
the above listed attorney(s) by mailing a copy to the above-referenced address, by depositing a copy of the
same in the U.S. Mail at 33 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinoi
on February 28, 2002, at 5:00 p.m.

properly addressed, stamped and sealed

Robert Cybak
Robert Cybak, #0566969

Robert Cybak & Associates

Attorneys for CAVALRY INVESTMENT, L.L.C.

33 N. LaSalle, Suite 1930 ry eo
Chicago, IL. 60602-2603

(312) 236-3580 x
e