Opinion
No. 08 C 55.
January 7, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Sakeena Shaw ("Shaw") has just brought a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Act") Complaint against Amsher Collection Services, Inc. ("Amsher"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address a patent and puzzling flaw in the Complaint — puzzling because Shaw is represented by the law firm that is by far the most active and most experienced in this judicial district in bringing claims under the Act.
What the Complaint reflects is a familiar scenario in these cases: issuance of a collection letter followed by a response by the putative debtor that disputes the debt (in this instance, the response included a statement that Shaw was represented by counsel), then followed in turn by assertedly improper further demands seeking collection of the debt. But what is odd is that the time sequence of those events set up in the Complaint is totally inconsistent with what is reflected in the photocopied exhibits attached to the Complaint: Event Date in Complaint Date in Exhibit
References to the Complaint will take the form "¶ —."
Under the circumstances the existing Complaint must be and is stricken, but without prejudice to the filing of a self-contained Amended Complaint on or before January 18, 2008. Shaw's counsel are directed:
1. to take whatever steps may be necessary to apprise Amsher and its counsel that the original Complaint need not be answered (if that advice is not communicated in time to prevent such a needless response, Shaw's counsel may be required to pay for the added work thus imposed on Amsher's counsel); and
2. not to bill Shaw for the added work or any expense involved in curing the flaw that has been referred to in this memorandum order.