Jackson v. I.C. System, Inc.
| Jessica Jackson |
| I.C. System, Inc. |
| 1:2021cv02030 |
| April 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the belated joint status report (Dckt. No. #10 ), which simply stated that the parties have not settled and are in the process of exchanging discovery. The parties must file a status report by July 30, 2021. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 10 Joint Status Report by Jessica Jackson (Camarena, Paul) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: On May 3, 2021, the Court directed the parties to file a status report about settlement by May 24, 2021. (Dckt. No. #5 ) The parties missed the deadline. The parties must file the status report by May 28, 2021. A failure to comply may lead to appropriate relief, including dismissal. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 8 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by I.C. System, Inc. (Martin, Eugene) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint by I.C. System, Inc.(Martin, Eugene) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by July 19, 2021. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiff's statement about standing (Dckt. No. #2 ). In that filing, Plaintiff stated that "[a]fter Ms. Jackson filed the instant cause of action, the Defendant caused credit reporting agencies to delete the Defendant's information and Ms. Jackson's credit score increased significantly." In light of that statement, it seems that this case is a good candidate for productive settlement discussions. By May 24, 2021, Plaintiff must file a status report about settlement. The Court reminds Plaintiff of the obligation to file proof of service of process under Rule 4. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 4 Statement Addressing Standing to Sue by Jessica Jackson (Camarena, Paul) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the complaint in this case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Dckt. No. #1 ). Plaintiff Jackson alleges that she "became delinquent with respect to some consumer debts," including a debt she owed to Sprint Corp. At some point, Defendant I.C. System, a debt collector, began collecting on the debt she owed to Sprint Corp. Id. at para. 6. As part of the collection effort, I.C. System reported Plaintiff's debt to credit reporting agencies. According to Plaintiff, I.C. System reported the wrong amount to those credit reporting agencies, falsely reporting that she owed Sprint "several thousand dollars." Id. The complaint alleges that Jackson disputed the amount of the debt owed to Sprint, and the credit agencies allegedly forwarded her dispute to I.C. System. Id. at para. 10. But I.C. System allegedly "failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into its own reported information," and thus "continues to inaccurately report the debt owed by Ms. Jackson," without noting the existence of the dispute. Id. at para. 11. So credit reporting agencies "continue to inaccurately report more debt than the amount actually owed by Ms. Jackson," and are "assigning a lower credit score to Ms. Jackson." Id. at 12. The Court has questions about whether Plaintiff suffered an injury in fact, and thus has standing to sue under the Seventh Circuit's recent case law. In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, the Court held that "Congress cannot erase Article III's standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing." Spokeo II, 136 S. Ct. at 154748 (quoting Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 820 n.3, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997)). Rather, "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation." Id. at 1549. However, the Court held that an intangible injury might still be sufficient to support standing where a defendant's statutory violation creates a "risk of real harm" to a plaintiff's concrete interest. Id. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that she has a lower credit score because I.C. System continues to report the debt without noting the existence of the dispute. But Plaintiff does not appear to allege that the lower credit score has caused her to suffer a concrete injury, meaning an actual, real-world harm (as opposed to a hypothetical future harm). For example, Plaintiff does not allege that the lower credit score caused her to lose an opportunity to obtain credit from a lender, let alone do so with any level of specificity. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered a "real risk of financial harm" from the inaccurate credit rating. Plaintiff also alleges that she has suffered "stress" and "difficulty sleeping." See Cplt., at para. 16. Some Seventh Circuit case law suggests that plaintiff's allegations may be sufficient to support standing. For example, in Evans v. Portfolio Associates, a plaintiff sued a creditor after plaintiff disputed a particular debt, and the creditor failed to tell credit reporting agencies that plaintiff was disputing it in violation of the FDCPA. See Evans, 889 F.3d 337, 345 (7th Cir. 2018). There, the Court held that the plaintiff had standing because he "suffered a real risk of financial harm caused by an inaccurate credit rating." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Appeals explained that "[a]n inaccurate credit report produces a variety of negative effects. For instance, it is 'a red flag to the debtor's other creditors and anyone who runs a background or credit check, including landlords and employers.'" Id. (quoting Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 2013)) (cleaned up). However, since Evans was issued, the Seventh Circuit has decided a number of other cases in this area. For example, in the last few months, the Seventh Circuit has issued quite a few opinions addressing the issue of standing under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. See, e.g., Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, 2020 WL 7488610 (7th Cir. 2020); Bazile v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 2020 WL 7351092 (7th Cir. 2020); Spuhler v. State Collection Service, Inc., 2020 WL 7351098 (7th Cir. 2020); Brunett v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 982 F.3d 1067 (7th Cir. 2020); Gunn v. Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel, PC, 982 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2020); Larkin v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 982 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 2020). By April 30, 2020, Plaintiff must file a statement and show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. In that statement, Plaintiff must address Evans and explain how it applies to this case and how it fits with later Seventh Circuit case law. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant I.C. System, Inc. (acm, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Camarena, Paul) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Jessica Jackson; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18128936.(Camarena, Paul) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Random assignment. (acm, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Jackson v. I.C. System, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jessica Jackson | |
| Represented By: | Paul Camarena |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: I.C. System, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
