Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DIANA ACOSTA, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members
described herein,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA
COUNTY, INC. d/b/a CHASE
RECEIVABLES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-8198

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiff Diana Acosta, respectfully requests that this Court enter an order determining
that this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") action may proceed as a class action
against Defendant Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. d/b/a Chase Receivables (Chase
Receivables or Defendant).
Plaintiff defines the class as (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) who were sent
a letter by defendant referring to its web site, (c) which letter was sent at any time during a
period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of
this action.
Plaintiff further requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and
Consumer Protection Law Center, Ltd., be appointed counsel for the class.
In support of this motion, plaintiff states:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

This case concerns the legality of a fee Chase Receivables charges consumers to

pay by credit card.

Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:16

2.

Chase Receivables is engaged in the business of a collection agency, collecting

allegedly defaulted accounts originally owed to others. Chase Receivables regularly uses the
mails and telephones to collect consumer debts originally owed to others. Defendant Chase
Receivables is a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA.
3.

On or about September 8, 2014, plaintiff received a form collection letter from

Chase Receivables. (Exhibit A.) The letter invites the consumer to pay online or by phone. If the
consumer attempts to pay on-line, the website states there is a $14.95 fee for paying by credit
card. (Exhibit B). No such fee may be charged in Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that the letter therefore
violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1).
CLASS CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
4.

Numerosity: Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1) requires that the class be so numerous that

joinder of all members is impracticable. It is not necessary for plaintiff to specify the exact
number of class members; reasonable estimates and common-sense assumptions are sufficient.
Driver v. AppleIllinois LLC, 265 F.R.D. 293, 300 (N.D. Ill. 2010). On information and belief, the
number of class members exceeds the approximately 40 that is generally considered to satisfy the
numerosity requirement. Hale v. AFNI, Inc., 264 F.R.D. 402, 404-406 (N.D. Ill. 2009), citing
Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, Inc., 415 F.2d 1326, 1333 (7th Cir. 1969).
5.

In the present case, it is reasonable to infer that the class is so numerous that

joinder of all members is not practicable from Chase Receivables standard practice of charging
a fee to make a payment by credit card, as well as the fact that Chase Receivables regularly
purchases and collects on large portfolios of consumer credit debt.

Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:17

6.

Commonality and predominance: Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2) requires that there be a

common question of law or fact. Rule 23(b)(3) requires that the questions of law or fact common
to all members of the class predominate over questions pertaining to individual members.
7.

There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff class, which common

issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal
issues are whether Chase Receivables practice of charging a fee to pay by credit card violates 15
U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692f(1).
8.

Since whether a debt collectors conduct violates the FDCPA is judged

objectively, from the standpoint of an unsophisticated consumer, Turner v. J.V.D.B. &

Associates, Inc., 330 F.3d 991, 995 (7th Cir. 2003), numerous FDCPA class actions involving
allegations that form collection letters are unfair and deceptive have been certified. Hale v.
AFNI, Inc., 264 F.R.D. 402 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Wahl v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 243
F.R.D. 291 (N.D. Ill. 2007); Hernandez v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 406
(N.D. Ill. 2006); Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark LLC, 198 F.R.D.
503 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Macarz v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 46 (D.Conn. 2000); Vines
v. Sands, 188 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
9.

Typicality: Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3) requires that the claims of a named plaintiff be

typical of the claims of the class. Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 1998), held that
[a] plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct
that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on the same
legal theory. (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)
10.

Here, Plaintiffs claim is typical of the claims of the class members. All are

based on the same factual and legal theories.

Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:18

11.

Adequacy of representation: Rule 23(a)(4) requires that a named plaintiff

provide fair and adequate protection for the interests of the class. That protection involves two
factors: (a) a plaintiffs attorney must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct
the proposed litigation; and (b) a plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic to those of the
class. Hale, supra, 264 F.R.D. at 406.
12.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class members. Plaintiff has

retained counsel experienced in class actions and collection abuse litigation. Counsels
qualification are set forth in Exhibits C and D.
13.

Superiority: Rule 23(b)(3) requires that a class action be superior to other

available means of resolving the dispute. Hale, supra, 264 F.R.D. at 407, noted that the Seventh
Circuit has held that class actions are especially appropriate for resolving FDCPA claims. See
Crawford v. Equifax Payment Servs., Inc., 201 F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 2000); Randolph, [supra,
254 F.R.D. at 520]. Where, as here, the defendant has engaged in standardized conduct by
sending form letters to many consumers, and each individual consumer's claim would likely be
too small to vindicate through an individual suit, a class action is the most efficient, effective
way to proceed. Quiroz, [supra, 252 F.R.D. at 444]; see also Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109
F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir. 1997).
14.

Randolph further held that [a] class action is superior where potential damages

may be too insignificant to provide class members with incentive to pursue a claim
individually.... the Seventh Circuit has noted that although the FDCPA allows for individual
recoveries, this assumes that the plaintiff is aware of his or her rights, willing to be subjected to
litigation and able to find an attorney to take the case. Mace, [supra, 109 F.3d at 344]. These are
considerations that cannot be dismissed lightly in assessing whether a class action or a series of

Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:19

individual lawsuits would be more appropriate for pursuing the FDCPAs objectives. Id.
Randolph, 254 F.R.D. at 520.
15.

In this case there is no better method available for the adjudication of the claims

which might be brought by each individual debtor. The vast majority of debtors are undoubtedly
unaware that their rights are being violated. In addition, persons from whom defendants are
attempting to collect allegedly delinquent debts are, by definition, unlikely to be able to pay to
retain counsel to protect their rights on an individual basis.
16.

Plaintiff is filing this motion with the complaint pursuant to Damasco v.

Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011).

Respectfully submitted,

s/Daniel A. Edelman
Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman
Cathleen M. Combs
James O. Latturner
Francis R. Greene
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 739-4200
(312) 419-0379 (FAX)
Michael J. Wood
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW CENTER, LTD.
565 W. Adams Street, Suite 635
Chicago, Illinois 60661
(312) 488-4017
(312) 476-1383 (FAX)

Case: 1:14-cv-08198 Document #: 4 Filed: 10/20/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Daniel A. Edelman, hereby certify that on October 20, 2014, I caused to be filed the
forgoing documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, and caused to be
served a true and accurate copy of such filing via hand delivery or process server on this date or
as soon thereafter as service may be effectuated upon the following party:
Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc.
d/b/a Chase Receivables
c/o CT Corporation System
208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 814
Chicago, IL 60604

s/Daniel A. Edelman
Daniel A. Edelman