1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BERNARDO CARDONA, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-00411

vs. )

)

HARRIS & HARRIS,LTD., )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Bernardo Cardona, brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1692k(d) of the FDCPA, and 28 U.S.C. § 

1331.

2. Venue is proper in this District because parts of the acts and transactions occurred 

here and Defendant transacts substantial business here.

STANDING

3. Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter that contained false or misleading 

representations in violation of the FDCPA. 

4. Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to receive all communications from a 

debt collector free from false statements or misrepresentations. E.g. Genova v. IC Systems, Inc., 

No. CV 16-5621, 2017 WL 2289289, at *3 (D.N.J. May 25, 2017).

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
2

5. Plaintiff suffered a concrete injury and harm to her reputation as a result of 

Defendant sharing of false information regarding alleged debts with a third party. Evans v. 

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 889 F.3d 337, 346 (7th Cir. 2018).

6. Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendant’s conduct, giving rise 

to standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016), quoting 

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has the power to define 

injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none

existed before.); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Congress can 

create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from misrepresentations, and if that right 

is invaded the holder of the right can sue without running afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no 

other injury[.]”).

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff, Bernardo Cardona (“Plaintiff”), is a resident of the state of Illinois from 

whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, allegedly owed for medical 

treatment or services from Northwest Community Hospital. Plaintiff is thus a “consumer” as that 

term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) of the FDCPA. 

8. Defendant, Harris & Harris, Ltd., (“Harris”), is an Illinois company authorized to 

conduct business in Illinois. Its registered agent in Illinois is MS Registered Agent Services, 191 

West Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois, 60606. 

9. Harris acts as a debt collector, as defined by § 1692a(6) of the FDCPA, because it 

regularly collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts originally owed or due or 

asserted to be owed or due another.

10. Harris is licensed as a collection agency in Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff incurred three (3) alleged debts for medical services or treatment, 

originally owed to Northwest Community Hospital. The alleged debts are thus “debts” as that 

term is defined at § 1692a(5) of the FDCPA.

12. Due to his financial circumstances, Plaintiff could not pay any debts, and the 

alleged debts went into default.

13. Harris subsequently began collecting the alleged debts.

14. In February 2019, Harris reported the alleged debts to the TransUnion credit 

reporting agency, including an account number and a total balance due for each. (Exhibit A, 

Redacted Excerpt from Plaintiff’s TransUnion Credit Report).

15. The tradelines on the TransUnion report list the “Estimated month and year that 

this item will be removed” (“Removal Date”) as being anywhere from December 2024 to 

February 2025 for the alleged debts, respectively.

16. The dates of service for the medical services provided all occurred in November 

and December 2016. 

17. Therefore, Harris is threatening to report the alleged debts for more than 8 years. 

18. Payment was due and owing “prior to the time of service; or prior to discharge if 

you have a deductible, co-payment or other self-pay amount due; or if you do not have insurance 

coverage.” Financial Roles and Responsibilities, Northwest Community Healthcare, available at: 

https://www.nch.org/patients-visitors/fees-and-bill-payment/financial-roles-and-responsibilities

(last visited January 17, 2020).

19. Thus, the debts were all in default by February 2017.

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
4

20. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., a credit bureau 

(consumer reporting agency) may not report “accounts placed for collection or charged to profit 

and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.” 15 U.S.C. §1681 c(a)(4). The 7-

year period “shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection 

(internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or 

subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date 

of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, 

charged to profit and loss, or similar action.” 15 U.S.C. §1681 c(c)(1) (FCRA § 605) (emphasis 

added).

21. The commencement of the delinquency, according to Northwest Community 

Healthcare’s financial policy, was at the time of service, when Plaintiff was required to pay any 

amounts he personally owes for medical services (co-pays, uncovered portions, etc.).

22. Thus, the lawful Removal Dates on all three tradelines are should be in June 2024 

at the latest.

23. However, Harris reported removal dates of December 2024 and February 2025 for 

the alleged debts.

24. These removal dates are false.

25. By communicating a false Removal Date 6-8 months past the actual Removal 

Date, Defendant communicates to the unsophisticated consumer that they are permitted to report 

the alleged debt to the credit bureaus for an additional 6-8 months, thus further damaging his 

credit score.

26. Often, debtors will pay or settle an account to avoid the possibility of negative 

information appearing on their credit reports. For this reason, the right to credit report is a 

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
5

“powerful tool designed, in part, to wrench compliance with payment terms....” Rivera v. Bank 

One, 145 F.R.D. 614, 623 (D.P.R. 1993).

27. 15 U.S.C. §1692e of the FDCPA provides as follows:

False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

28. Defendant made a false representation in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e when it

communicated a false Removal Date to Plaintiff and TransUnion.

29. 15 U.S.C. §1692e of the FDCPA provides as follows:

False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading 

representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 

Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following 

conduct is a violation of this section:

. . .(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that 

is not intended to be taken. . . .

30. Defendant threatened an action that cannot legally be taken, in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(5), when it re-aged an alleged debt to permit credit reporting for a longer period 

of time.

31. Violations of the FDCPA which would influence a consumer’s decision to pay a 

debt in response to a dunning letter, are material. Boucher v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., No. 

17-2308, 2018 WL 443885, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 2018) (citing Muha v. Encore Receivable 

Mgmt., Inc., 558 F.3d 623, 628 (7th Cir. 2009)). Here, the additional 6-8 months Defendant 

added to the Date of Delinquency could cause Plaintiff to pay the debt in an effort to avoid an 

extended period of negative credit reporting.

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
6

32. Defendant’s collection communications are to be interpreted under the 

“unsophisticated consumer” standard. See, Gammon v. GC Services, Ltd. Partnership, 27 F.3d 

1254, 1257 (7th Cir. 1994). 

COUNT I- FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

33. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as if set forth fully in this count.

34. Defendant made a false representation, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, when it

communicated a false Removal Date to Plaintiff. 

35. Defendant threatened an action that cannot legally be taken, in violation of 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(5), when it re-aged an alleged debt to permit credit reporting for a longer period 

of time.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff and the class, and against Defendant as follows:

A. Statutory damages for all class members pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2);

B. Costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3);

C. Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

By: s/Michael Wood

 One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Michael Wood

Celetha Chatman

Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

Ph: (312) 757-1880

Fx: (312) 265-3227

cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-00411 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6