7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

JESSICA A. TWARDOWSKI §

§

Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04285-MFW

§

v. § PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF 

MATERIAL FACTS

§

CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LP §

§

Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

NOW COMES Plaintiff, JESSICA A. TWARDOWSKI (“Plaintiff”), by and through her 

undersigned counsel, responding to CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LP’s (“CMLP”) Statement of 

Material Facts as follows: 

Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy

1. On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff and her husband, Ryan Twardowski, filed for 

bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Exhibit 3.

Response: Undisputed. 

2. In her bankruptcy schedule, Plaintiff included a debt owed to “AllianceRx 

Walgreens Prime,” for the amount of $165.00. Exhibit 3 at 22.

Response: Undisputed. 

3. The above-referenced Bankruptcy Petition was granted, with an order of discharge 

entered June 18, 2020, in Cause. No. 20-04391. Exhibit 4.

Response: Undisputed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:264
7

CMLP’s Policies and Procedures

4. CMLP is a company that engages in collecting third-party debts for its clients.

Exhibit 2 at 9:18-21.

Response: Undisputed.

5. At any given time, CMLP services hundreds of thousands of debts for 

approximately fifty clients. Exhibit 2 at 16:1-17:6.

Response: Undisputed.

6. It is CMLP’s policy not to engage in collection activity on accounts it knows to 

be subject to bankruptcy. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 27:18-22; 67:20-68:6; Defendant Exhibit 8; 

Defendant Exhibit 12 at ¶ 6.

Response: Undisputed that Defendant contends that it maintains a policy to 

engage in collection activity on accounts it knows to be subject to bankruptcy. Plaintiff 

disputes that Defendant adequately maintains or adheres to such policy as Defendant 

attempted to collect a discharged debt from Plaintiff. See Defendant’s Exhibit 5 of 

Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts. 

7. It is CMLP’s policy not to accept placement of accounts from creditors when it is 

known by the creditor that the account is subject to bankruptcy. Defendant’s Exhibit 12 at ¶ 4.

Response: Disputed. Defendant accepted the placement of the subject account 

despite the fact that the creditor had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. See 

Defendant Exhibit 3 and 4. Specifically, Plaintiff duly scheduled the subject account in 

her bankruptcy schedules and therefore the creditor had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s 

bankruptcy. See Defendant’s Exhibit 3 (bankruptcy schedules). Despite the creditor 

having knowledge of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, Defendant still accepted the placement of the 

subject account. See Defendant Exhibit 6. Moreover, Defendant’s written policies and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:265
7

procedures make no mention of CMLP’s policy not to accept placement of accounts from 

creditors when it is known by the creditor that the account is subject to bankruptcy. See 

Defendant Exhibit 7 (“Scrubbing New Placements for Bankruptcy, Deceased, and 

Litigious Consumers – Procedure”) Defendant Exhibit 8 (“Policy & Procedure for 

Accounts Subject to Bankruptcy – Including Scrubbing, Monitoring & Filing Proof of 

Claims”); Defendant Exhibit 9 (“Bankruptcy”); Defendant Exhibit 10 (“Disputes –

Consumer Filed Bankruptcy. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 (at 77;5-22; 78;1-7.)

8. Creditors for whom CMLP collects debts have an affirmative duty to inform 

CMLP if an account is subject to bankruptcy, and that information is either automatically 

received from creditors or comes in through clients’ contact with a Client Services 

representative. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 69:17-70:7; 71:6-19; Defendant’s Exhibit 12 at ¶ 5.

Response: Undisputed that the declaration cited by CMLP avers that 

creditors have an affirmative duty to inform CMLP if an account is subject to 

bankruptcy. However, CMLP’s deposition testimony demonstrates that no such 

affirmative duty exists. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 69:17-22, 70, 1-7; 

9. Every time CMLP receives a new account, it sends the account information to a 

third-party vendor, LCI, to identify whether the account is subject to bankruptcy (a process 

known as a “scrub.”) Exhibit 8 at ¶ 5.1.1; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 7.

Response: Disputed. Defendant’s deposition testimony revealed that 

_________________________,. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 13;9-19. 

10. It is CMLP’s policy to subject every new account to a bankruptcy scrub. Exhibit 

8 at ¶ 5.1.1; Exhibit 7 at ¶ 4; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 7.

Response: Undisputed. However, CMLP’s “bankruptcy scrub” procedure is 

nothing more than reliance on information provided by a third party. In other words, CMLP 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:266
7

does not have any policies and procedures to independently verify that the information 

received from the third party is accurate. Defendant’s Exhibit 7 at ¶ 1 and 4; Defendant’s 

Exhibit 8 at ¶ 5.1.1; Defendant’s Exhibit 12 at ¶ 8.

11. If LCI identifies that an account or debtor is subject to bankruptcy, it returns that 

information to CMLP. Exhibit 8 at ¶ 5.1.1; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 8.

Response: Undisputed. 

12. If LCI does not initially detect that a new account is subject to bankruptcy, it 

continues to monitor that account to identify if the account ever becomes subject to bankruptcy 

at a later date. Exhibit 8 at ¶ 5.1.2; Exhibit 2 at 34:21-35:11; 70:13-21; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 9-10.

Response: Undisputed as to the policy in place. Disputed as to the fact that 

LCI continued to monitor Plaintiff’s subject account. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 38;4-

22; 39;1-5.

13. If LCI later identifies an account has become subject to bankruptcy, it returns an 

updated report to CMLP. Exhibit 2 at 61:5-9; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 10.

Response: Undisputed. 

14. Based on CMLP’s experience working with LCI, CMLP considers LCI a reliable 

vendor. Exhibit 2 at 40:13-41:10.

Response: Disputed. LCI is an unreliable source as demonstrated by its failure 

to identify Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 41:6-10.

15. LCI has not provided unreliable information to CMLP in the past. Exhibit 2 at

41:2-5.

Response: Disputed. LCI provides CMLP with unreliable information as 

demonstrated by the inaccurate information it provided CMLP with respect to Plaintiff’s

bankruptcy. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 41:6-10.

16. When CMLP is notified that any account is subject to bankruptcy, its policy is to 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:267
7

immediately mark that the account is subject to bankruptcy, which is done automatically if the 

information is received through an automated process or manually if the information is received 

by a Client Services representative, and to automatically withdraw the account or place it on a 

permanent hold. Exhibit 2 at 71:6-19; Exhibit 8 at ¶ 5.2.2; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 11-12.

Response: Undisputed. 

17. When CMLP receives notice from a client, debtor, or other entity that an account 

is subject to bankruptcy, its procedure is to similarly mark that the account is subject to 

bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 at 69:3-16; 69:17-70:7; 71:6-19; Exhibit 12 at ¶¶ 11-12.

Response: Undisputed. 

18. When CMLP receives a dispute from a consumer noting a bankruptcy, employees 

in the Account Resolution Department timely process those disputes and mark that the account is 

subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 9; Exhibit 12 at ¶¶ 11-12.

Response: Undisputed.

19. When CMLP marks that an account is subject to bankruptcy, whether it receives 

bankruptcy through a scrub, from the client, from a third-party, a consumer, or a consumer’s 

attorney, its policy is to take no further collection action on that account. Exhibit 2 at 71:20-

72:10; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 12.

Response: Undisputed. 

20. CMLP’s policy of ceasing collection on any accounts subject to bankruptcy applies 

equally to circumstances when CMLP is notified of the bankruptcy through a bankruptcy scrub, 

it receives the bankruptcy information from a client or other third-party, or receives a dispute from 

a consumer noting the account is subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 at 71:20-72:3; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 

10; Exhibit 12 at ¶¶ 11-12.

Response: Undisputed

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:268
7

21. The policies described here are memorialized and available to all employees, and 

are included in regular training, including a quarterly refresher course for any employee handling 

consumer accounts. Exhibit 2 at 28:3-29:10; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 

12 at ¶ 13.

Response: Disputed. Defendant’s Exhibits 7, 8, 9 and 10 make no mention of 

regular training, including a quarterly refresher course for any employee handling consumer 

accounts. Disputed as CMLPs deposition testimony at Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 at 28:3-29 does not 

specifically discuss Defendant’s Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, Exhibit 10. Specifically, CMLP’s 

deposition testimony only discusses training regarding accounts that are discovered to be in 

bankruptcy and does not address policies and procedures prior to the beginning of collection on an 

account. 

22. CMLP does not commence collection activity on an account unless and until it 

receives a negative response from its bankruptcy scrub. Exhibit 2 at 23:5-9.

Response: Disputed. Defendant’s deposition testimony revealed that CMLP 

accepts accounts from its clients and starts collecting on the debt immediately. Moreover, 

Defendant’s written policies and procedures do not reflect that CMLP does not commence collection 

activity on an account unless and until it receives a negative response from its bankruptcy scrub. 

See Defendant’s Exhibit 7 (“Scrubbing New Placements for Bankruptcy, Deceased, and Litigious 

Consumers – Procedure”); Defendant’s Exhibit 8 (“Policy& Procedure for Accounts Subject to 

Bankruptcy – Including Scrubbing, Monitoring & Filing Proof of Claims”).; Notably, Defendant’s 

policies and procedures suggest that collection activity begins immediately after an account is 

placed with Defendant and do not reflect that CMLP will not commence collection activity until it 

receives a negative response from its bankruptcy scrub. See Defendant’s Exhibit 8 at ¶5.1.2;

Defendant’s Exhibit 9 (“Bankruptcy”) Defendant’s Exhibit 10 (“Disputes – Consumer Filed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:269
7

Bankruptcy”). 

The Subject Account

23. On June 29, 2020, CMLP received an account from its client AllianceRx 

Walgreens Prime (“Walgreens”) that reflected a $165.00 debt owed by Plaintiff Jessica 

Twardowski (“the Account”). Exhibit 6; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 15.

Response: Undisputed. 

24. When it received the Account from Walgreens, CMLP was not notified by 

Walgreens that the Account was subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 at 39:6-13; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 16.

Response: Undisputed. 

25. At no time after it received the Account did CMLP receive notification from 

Walgreens that the Account was subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 12 at ¶ 16.

Response: Undisputed. 

26. At no time before or after it received the Account did CMLP receive notice from 

the Bankruptcy Court that the Account was subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 12 at ¶ 17.

Response: Undisputed. 

27. CMLP followed all its regular policies and procedures as it processed the 

Account. Exhibit 2 at 40:1-12; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 14.

Response: Disputed. CMLP’s reference to Defendant’s Exhibit 2 at 40:1-12 does 

not specifically state that CMLP followed all its regular policies and procedures as it processed the 

Account. Specifically, Defendant’s Exhibit 2 at 40:1-12 states that “CMLP handled Plaintiff’s 

subject account like it handled other accounts” and does not state that it handled the Account 

consistent with its policies and procedures. Had CMLP properly handled the Account, it would not 

have attempted to collect a discharged debt. See. Exhibit 5. 

28. On the day the Account was received, CMLP sent the Account information to LCI 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:270
7

and requested a bankruptcy scrub. Exhibit 6; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 18.

Response: Undisputed. 

29. LCI did not return any information noting the Account was subject to bankruptcy.

Exhibit 2 at 38:4-12; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 19.

Response: Undisputed. 

30. At no time after CMLP initially sent the Account to LCI for a bankruptcy scrub 

did LCI notify CMLP that the Account was subject to bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 at 38:13-39:5; 

Exhibit 12 at ¶ 19.

Response: Undisputed. 

31. On July 1, 2020, CMLP sent Plaintiff a letter notifying her that it held the Account 

and informing her of her rights to validate and dispute the subject debt. Exhibit 5 (“the Letter”); 

Exhibit 2 at 42:22-43:12; Exhibit 12 at ¶¶ 20-21.

Response: Undisputed. 

32. CMLP sent the Letter after LCI returned a negative bankruptcy scrub indicating it 

had not identified a bankruptcy that applied to the account. Exhibit 2 at 32:7-17; Exhibit 12 at ¶¶ 

18-21.

Response: Undisputed. 

33. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court seeking damages under the 

FDCPA and claiming CMLP attempted to collect on an account that was subject to bankruptcy. 

Exhibit 11; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 22.

Response: Undisputed. 

34. At no time prior to the filing of this lawsuit did Plaintiff attempt to dispute the 

debt or otherwise inform CMLP of the bankruptcy. Exhibit 6; Exhibit 1 at 35:25-36:10; Exhibit 

12 at ¶ 23.

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:271
7

Response: Undisputed.

35. At the time it sent the Letter, CMLP was not aware that the Account was subject 

to bankruptcy. Exhibit 2 at 37:17-21; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 21.

Response: Undisputed. 

36. Upon learning of the bankruptcy, CMLP immediately flagged and closed the 

account and ceased all collection activities. Exhibit 6; Exhibit 12 at ¶ 24.

Response: Undisputed. 

Plaintiff’s Reaction to the Letter

37. Plaintiff claims to have suffered injury in the form of “anxiety and emotional 

distress.” Complaint at ¶ 19.

Response: Undisputed. Plaintiff also claims that she was deprived of her fresh 

start after bankruptcy and was misled into believing that her bankruptcy was ineffective and had no 

legal effect. Defendant’s Exhibit 1; 21; 21-25, 22;4-7.

38. Plaintiff’s description of her emotional distress merely mention “anxiety” and 

“stress.” Exhibit 1 at 21-23; 32:18-22.

Response: Disputed. Plaintiff described in detail what caused the anxiety 

and stress and did not “merely mention” anxiety and stress as Defendant contends. See Exhibit 

1 at 22; 4-7. 

39. When she received the letter, Plaintiff was aware that the debt it described had 

already been discharged in her bankruptcy proceeding, and thus knew she would not be required 

to pay that debt. Exhibit 1 at 33:13-24; 35:25-36:3.

Response: Disputed. Plaintiff testified that the letter misled her into believing 

she was still liable on the Account and that her bankruptcy discharge had no legal effect. See 

Defendant’s Exhibit 1 at 21; 21-25; 22; 4-7; 33:13-24; 35:25-36:3. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:272
7

40. Plaintiff began seeing a mental health professional to treat postpartum depression 

in approximately fall of 2019. Exhibit 1 at 45:22-47:3.

Response: Undisputed. 

41. Plaintiff began seeing a mental health professional again in approximately May of 

2020. Exhibit 1 at 44:3-25.

Response: Undisputed. 

42. Plaintiff began seeing this mental health professional prior to CMLP sending the 

Letter. Exhibit 1 at 45:1-4.

Response: Undisputed. 

43. Plaintiff started seeing this mental health professional to treat anxiety, which was 

partially related to her bankruptcy proceedings. Exhibit 1 at 34:17-35:2.

Response: Undisputed. 

44. Plaintiff’s anxiety is related to her bankruptcy proceedings as a whole, and is not 

related to her receiving CMLP’s letter. Exhibit 1 at 35:3-12.

Response: Disputed. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that the letter caused 

her anxiety. Plaintiff concedes that she did not receive treatment because of the letter itself. See 

Defendant’s Exhibit 1 at 21; 21-25; 22; 4-7; 33:13-24; 35:25-36:3.

45. Plaintiff has not discussed CMLP’s letter with her mental health professional.

Exhibit 1 at 35:13-15.

Response: Undisputed. 

46. Plaintiff has not discussed CMLP’s letter with anyone other than her husband, her 

attorney, and the parties to this lawsuit. Exhibit 1 at 35:16-24.

Response: Undisputed. 

47. Plaintiff anticipates that her husband’s testimony would mention his knowledge of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:273
7

the debt, the fact that the debt was discharged, the fact that there was a collection letter, and the 

fact that Plaintiff was deposed. Exhibit 1 at 34:5-8.

Response: Undisputed. 

48. Upon receiving CMLP’s letter, the only action Plaintiff took was to give the letter 

to her attorneys. Exhibit 1 at 35:25-36:10.

Response: Disputed. Prior to sending the letter to her attorneys, Plaintiff read 

the letter and suffered anxiety and stress as she was misled into believing that she is still liable for 

the Account. Defendant’s Exhibit 1 at 21; 21-25; 22; 4-7.

49. The attorneys to whom Plaintiff gave the letter were already engaged in 

representing her concerning multiple other ongoing matters. Exhibit 1 at 50:9-16; 51:12-17.

Response: Undisputed. 

Dated: June 16, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Victor T. Metroff

Mohammed O. Badwan

Victor T. Metroff 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200

Lombard, IL 60148

Phone: (630)575-8180

Fax: (630)575-8188

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:274
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 16th, 2021, the foregoing was filed 

electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served by operation of the Court's electronic filing 

system to the following counsel of record:

PATRICK A. WATTS, IL Bar #6302112

150 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 2400

Chicago, IL 60606

P: (312) 741-0990

F: (888) 632-6937

pwatts@mamlaw.com

/s/ Victor T. Metroff

Case: 1:20-cv-04285 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/16/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:275