Opinion
No. 03 C 6717.
May 18, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider our ruling in which we rejected plaintiff's reading of the Illinois Interest Act but denied defendant's motion to dismiss on other grounds. See Olvera v. Blitt Gaines, No. 03 C 6717, 2004 WL 887372 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2004). Plaintiff argues that because the Interest Act specifies the interest rate assignees of retail installment agreements can charge, the Act must also regulate the interest all assignees of other credit agreements can charge. But plaintiff's proposed statutory construction is neither supported by statute nor case law. The Court accordingly denies plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [docket #21-1]. We also note parenthetically what should be obvious from our ruling: so long as the interest that defendant sought to collect from plaintiff was "expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt," see 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1), then defendant's attempt to collect that amount was not unlawful under the FDCPA.