Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-alleged debtor’s action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where Dist. Ct. based dismissal on finding that plaintiff was not qualifying “consumer” under FDCPA. Record showed that plaintiff had previously denied that subject debt had been incurred by him, and that plaintiff had prevailed in collection case that had previously been filed in small claims court. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff was not qualifying consumer, since plaintiff had failed to allege that he actually owed any debt, Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiff qualified as covered consumer, since defendants had alleged that plaintiff owed said debt. Also, on remand, plaintiff will be able to amend his complaint to reflect that instant credit card debt was for personal, family or household purchases as required to satisfy definition of qualifying debt under section 1692a(5) of FDCPA.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-supervisor’s motion to dismiss for failure to state valid claim plaintiff-subordinate’s action alleging that defendant tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s at-will employment contract with parties’ employer, which resulted in plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff failed to allege that defendant intended to cause breach of plaintiff’s employment contract, and nothing in complaint alleged that defendant was involved in decision to terminate plaintiff or was active participant in said decision-making process. Fact that defendant had reported plaintiff’s poor job performance to management and that plaintiff’s termination followed said report was insufficient to state claim for tortious interference. Plaintiff further failed to properly plead claim for fraud under Rule 9(b), even though plaintiff claimed that defendant directed him to work on cancelled project, and that defendant had failed to tell plaintiff that management had cancelled said project. Instant complaint failed to contain sufficiently detailed theory of fraud and further failed to explain how defendant would accomplish goals of protecting his job and commercial reputation by directing plaintiff to work on cancelled project.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that plaintiff’s breach of contract action, that concerned plaintiff’s supply of baked goods to defendant for further sale to public, was untimely under applicable 4-year limitations period set forth in 810 ILCS 5/2-275, where instant claim accrued no later than time of final sale of baked goods in October of 2011, and where plaintiff waited until May of 2017 to file instant lawsuit. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s contention that instant contract was essentially contract for services, which had 10-year limitations period, where instant distributorship agreement was predominately for sale of goods to consumers. Dist. Ct. could also properly dismiss plaintiff’s tortious interference with contract claim arising out of plaintiff’s contention that defendant had fabricated breaches of contract and attributed them to plaintiff, where: (1) instant claim was untimely based on applicable 5-year limitations period, as claim accrued in 2011, when plaintiff knew of instance where defendant had lodged false complaint about plaintiff’s service; (2) fact that plaintiff was unaware at that time of precise wrongdoing did not entitle plaintiff to take advantage of discovery rule; and (3) under Illinois law, party to contract cannot assert tortious interference claim that concerned its own contract.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging that defendant breached terms of contract that plaintiff had with third-party to produce scratch-off phone cards that contained game of chance for plaintiff’s customers. Record showed that defendant had contracted with third-party to produce said cards. While plaintiff alleged that said contract required defendant to produce cards that would not allow customers to “candle” or determine under any procedure what was under coating on cards without scratching off said coating, and that said “zero candling” was only acceptable standard for production of said cards, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument and found no breach of contract, since said standard was not mentioned in either contract between plaintiff and third-party or between third-party and defendant, and that both contracts were silent on issue of candling. Moreover, plaintiff’s experts conceded that said cards matched or exceeded trade association standard that provided that scratch off card presented security risk only if it could be candled in five minutes or less.