Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

William Smith v. Northstar Location Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


June 29, 2011

WILLIAM SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge

E-FILED Wednesday, 29 June, 2011 09:55:34 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

On June 9, 2011, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that Defendant has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, by continuing to place collection calls to him despite the fact that he has repeatedly indicated that he is not the individual Defendant is attempting to contact and asked that the calls cease. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, as he has failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that he is a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA.

The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's detailed discussion and recommendation that Defendant has misconstrued the requirements of both the statute and Rule 8, as well as his conclusion that the Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#16] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#10] is DENIED. This matter is again REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Cudmore for further proceedings.

James E. Shadid

20110629

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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