Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Omaraie v. A. Alliance Collection Agency

August 21, 2007

FARZAD OMARAIE PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge George M. Marovich

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Farzad Omaraie ("Omaraie") filed a complaint against defendant A. Alliance Collection Agency ("Alliance"). Omaraie claims that Alliance violated two sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Plaintiff and defendant have filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to liability on both of the alleged FDCPA violations. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

Before the Court discusses the facts, it reiterates the importance of complying with Local Rule 56.1. Local Rule 56.1 outlines the requirements for the introduction of facts parties would like considered in connection with a motion for summary judgment. The Court enforces the rule strictly. See Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co., Case No. 02 C 5892, 2006 WL 314516 at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb.8, 2006); see also Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817-18 (7th Cir. 2004). Facts that are argued but do not conform with the rule are not considered by the Court. Where one party supports a fact with admissible evidence and the other party fails to controvert the fact with citation to admissible evidence, the Court deems the fact admitted. See Rawoof at *2.

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Defendant Alliance is a collection agency. It collects debts originally owed to others. On or about January 25, 2006, Alliance sent plaintiff Omaraie a collection letter. This letter was the initial correspondence between Alliance and Omaraie. The letter stated as follows (boldface in original):

We represent Roger W. Stelk in connection with the captioned matter. . . . Please be advised the above debt has been referred to this office for institution of collection proceedings against you. Collection proceedings will be instituted as soon as possible notwithstanding this notice. We are attempting to collect a debt you owe the above named creditor [Roger Stelk] and any information we obtain will be used for that purpose.

In accordance with the above Act, you are hereby notified of the following information:

1. The amount of debt: $1,511.25

2. Name of creditor to whom the debt is owed: Roger W. Stelk

3. Unless you, within thirty (30) days after the receipt of this Notice, dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, we will assume the debt is valid.

4. If you notify us in writing within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this Notice, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor.

Upon receipt of this correspondence, please call to discuss an amiable resolution.

Please be advised this office claims a lien for fees plus costs related to this matter.

Claiming that portions of this letter violate the FDCPA, Omaraie filed this suit against Alliance. Plaintiff has not revealed any expert witness or consumer survey data that he intends to use at trial to support his allegations. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.