Opinion
Case No. 16 C 9040
09-21-2016
ANNA COLBERT, Plaintiff, v. ACCOUNT SERVICES, etc., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Anna Colbert ("Colbert") has filed what is labeled as an "Amended Complaint" ("AC") against defendant Account Services, identified in AC ¶ 10 as a "debt collector" within the definition of that term in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of the patently frivolous nature of this action as advanced by Colbert's counsel.
As the court docket reflects, both the original Complaint and the AC were filed on the same day, September 19, 2016. There is no need to refer to the original Complaint because it was superseded by the AC.
All further references to Title 15's provisions will simply take the form "Section --," omitting the prefatory "15 U.S.C. §." --------
What the AC charges as an asserted violation of the Act points to its Section 1692e(7):
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:As Colbert's counsel (and hence Colbert herself) would have it, a May 23, 2016 letter from Account Services to Colbert "is stating and at the very least implying that Plaintiff is being dishonest with this debt" (AC ¶ 19).
* * *
7. The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.
But unfortunately for any plausible contention that would lend credence to that claim, Colbert's counsel has attached the assertedly offending letter as Ex. A to the AC, and a photocopy of that document has been attached as Ex. 1 to this memorandum order. Simply to read the letter itself demonstrates once again the wisdom of the aphorism in Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism:
All seems infected that th' infected spy, As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye.
In this instance Account Services' collection letter is totally forthright and respectful, expressly recognizing as it does that Colbert has been either "unable or unwilling to pay the balance in full" (emphasis added) and offering Colbert "the opportunity to make reasonable payments and make good on your promise to pay this just and honest debt." No reasonable reader could fairly view the letter's reference to the debt itself as "just and honest" as somehow implying dishonesty on Colbert's part or as somehow "imply[ing] that Plaintiff has committed a disgrace" (AC ¶ 21).
Counsel's parting shot before the AC's prayer for relief is set out at AC ¶ 24:
As a direct consequence of the Defendant's acts, practices and conduct, the Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer from humiliation, anger, anxiety, and frustration.In candor, it seems more likely that it is Colbert's counsel who may sustain any of those feelings as a result of this Court's ruling here. Both the AC and this action are stricken sua sponte (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1)).
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge Date: September 21, 2016
Image materials not available for display.