Skip to Content
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, LLC Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
Call Us Today! 312-626-3585

Protecting the Rights of Consumers For Over 25 Years

  • Jenkins v. Heintz
    25 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 1994), aff'd 514 U.S. 291 (1995): Established Fair Debt Collection Practices Act coverage of attorneys; Mr. Edelman argued it before Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court.
  • McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC
    744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2014), later opinion, 807 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2015); and Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., 776 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2015): Leading decisions on the collection of time-barred debts via settlement offers; courts held that such offers are misleading unless the time-barred nature of the debt is disclosed.
  • Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC

    757 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc): Leading decision on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act venue requirements. Court held that in Marion County, Indiana, small claims cases must be filed in the township where the consumer signed a contract or resided when the lawsuit was filed. Similarly, in Cook County, Illinois, cases within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Department must be filed in the Municipal District where the consumer signed a contract or resided when the lawsuit was filed.

  • Siwulec v. J.M. Adjustment Servs., LLC

    465 Fed. Appx. 200 (3d Cir. 2012): Company which initiated communications between mortgage companies and borrowers was required to comply with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Nielsen v. Dickerson

    307 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2002): Leading decision on phony "attorney letters," sent without attorney involvement, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Avila v. Rubin

    84 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. 1996), aff'g Avila v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 94 C 3234, 1994 WL 649101 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 14, 1994), later opinion, 1995 WL 22866 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 18, 1995), later opinion, 1995 WL 41425 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 31, 1995), later opinion, 1995 WL 55255 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 8, 1995), later opinion, 1995 WL 683775, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 17117 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 16, 1995): Leading decision on phony "attorney letters," sent without attorney involvement, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

  • Boyd v. Wexler

    275 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2001): Court found that number of “attorney letters” sent was such as to give rise to inference that no attorney had anything to do with them.

  • Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S.
    836 F.3d 808 (7 th Cir. 2016): Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving deceptive statements in collection complaints.
  • Hart v. FCI Lender Services, Inc.

    797 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2015): Addresses what constitutes “initial communication” under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in context of various mortgage-related communications.

  • Ruth v. Triumph Partnerships

    577 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2009): Addresses what communications are sent in connection with the collection of a debt and are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, P.C.

    383 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2004): Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case; holds that when attorney’s fees, collection fees and similar charges are added to a debt, they must be separately identified.

  • Miller v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

    No. 08 C 780, 2009 WL 528796, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16273 (N.D.Ill. March 2, 2009): Court held that it was a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to send class members a form privacy notice that stated that the debt collector might disclose nonpublic financial information to credit card issuers.

  • Peter v. GC Servs. L.P.

    310 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2002): Envelope used to send collection letter sent by private company collecting federal student loan debts, which contained name and address of the United States Department of Education, as well as a “penalty for private use” message, violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provisions governing use of words and symbols on debt collection envelopes and prohibiting use of any business, company, or organization name other than that of debt collector's business, company, or organization.

  • Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.

    109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997): Nothing prohibits plaintiff in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit from limiting class to a single state or similar geographic area; state law requiring notice prior to presentation of claim does not apply to federal class action.

  • Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc.

    201 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000), and Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999): Sustained our client’s objections to proposed settlement of class action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in which class members would not receive any monetary benefit.

  • Janetos v. Fulton, Friedman & Gullace, LLP

    825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2016): Addresses Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requirement that current owner of debt be disclosed; holds that debt buyer is liable for acts of collection attorney or agent it hires.

  • Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C.

    214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000); and Boucher v. Finance System of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2018): Address how required disclosure of “amount of the debt” should be made where debt is continually increasing.

  • Mitchell v. LVNV Funding, LLC

    2:12cv523-TLS, 2017 WL 6406594 (N.D.Ind., Dec. 15, 2017): Addresses Fair Debt Collection Practice Act coverage of debt buyers.

  • McDonald v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

    296 F.R.D. 513 (E.D.Mich. 2013): Important case on amount of interest that debt buyers can charge.

  • Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co.

    679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012): Important case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act provisions which restrict robocalls to cells phones. Court held that only the consent of the subscriber or user of the cellular number dialed at the time of the call can justify an automated or recorded call, so that liability exists if the caller robodials a telephone number that has been reassigned.

  • Swaney v. Regions Bank

    2:13cv544, 2018 WL 2316452 (N.D.Ala., May 22, 2018): Court addresses what constitutes automated telephone dialing system regulated by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

  • Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll’s Pharmacy and Homecare, Inc.

    2015 IL 118644, 48 N.E.3d 1060 (Ill.Sup.Ct.): Affirmed certification of class in “junk fax” case under Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

  • West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd. v. North American Bancard, LLC
    16cv5856, 2018 WL 3738281 (N.D.Ill., August 7, 2018): Certified class in “junk fax” case.
  • Mussat v. Enclarity, Inc.
    16cv5856, 2018 WL 3738281 (N.D.Ill., August 7, 2018): Certified class in “junk fax” case.
  • Portfolio Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Feltman

    391 Ill.App.3d 642, 909 N.E.2d 876 (1st Dist. 2009): Held that statute of limitations applicable to general purpose bank credit card debts in Illinois is five years. Mr. Edelman wrote amicus brief in support of consumer.

  • Ramirez v. Palisades Collection LLC

    250 F.R.D. 366 (N.D.Ill. 2008) (class certified), later opinion, 07 C 3840, 2008 WL 2512679, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48722 (N.D.Ill., June 23, 2008) (summary judgment denied): Held that statute of limitations applicable to general purpose bank credit card debts in Illinois is five years.

  • Parkis v. Arrow Fin Servs.
    07 C 410, 2008 WL 94798, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1212 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 8, 2008): Held that statute of limitations applicable to general purpose bank credit card debts in Illinois is five years.
  • Herkert v. MRC Receivables Corp.
    655 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D.Ill. 2008): Court held that statute of limitations applicable to general purpose bank credit card debts in Illinois is five years, and it is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to file collection lawsuits after the five year statute of limitations.
  • Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

    736 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2013): Held that statute of limitations on natural gas debts in Illinois is four years, as natural gas debts arise from the sale of goods, and that filing suit on time-barred debts violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

  • Ramirez v. AP Account Services, LLC

    16cv2772, 2017 WL 25179 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 3, 2017): Five year statute of limitations governs claim against consumer for checking account overdrafts.

  • Taylor v. Screening Reports, Inc.

    13cv2886, 2015 WL 4052824 (N.D.Ill., July 2, 2015): Court addresses what constitutes inaccurate information on tenant screening report, a form of consumer report regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

  • Livingston v. Fast Cash USA, Inc.

    753 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 2001): Court outlawed “payday loans” in Indiana. A statute was subsequently enacted allowing such loans but at a comparatively low rate.

  • Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC

    764 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2014): Arbitration agreement specifying that any disputes arising from high interest payday loan agreements must be resolved in arbitration by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation was illusory and unenforceable.

  • Eul v. Transworld Systems

    15cv7755, 2017 WL 1178537 (N.D.Ill., March 30, 2017): Addresses numerous issues relating to the collection of private student loans.

  • Unifund v. Shah

    407 Ill.App.3d 737, 946 N.E.2d 885 (1st Dist. 2011), later opinion, 2013 IL App (1st) 113658, 993 N.E.2d 518: Established requirements for assignments to debt buyers and debt collectors.

  • Jones v. Kunin

    99-818-GPM, 2000 WL 34402017, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6380 (S.D.Ill., May 1, 2000): Illinois bad check statute does not apply to checks issued to secure payment of loans.

  • Fridman v. NYCB Mortgage Co.
    780 F.3d 773 (7 th Cir. 2015): Addresses Truth in Lending Act requirement that mortgage company credit payments as of the date of receipt.
  • Gibson v. Bob Watson Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.

    112 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 1997); Taylor v. Quality Hyundai, Inc., 150 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1998); and Grimaldi v. Webb, 282 Ill.App.3d 174, 668 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1996): Car dealer cannot represent that full price charged for extended warranty is paid to the warranty company when dealer retains a portion of it. Grimaldi also holds that it is a consumer fraud violation for a seller to engage in a policy and practice of having buyers sign binding purchase orders before financing terms were disclosed.

  • Hamm v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.
    506 F.3d 525 (7 th Cir. 2007): Court allowed rescission of residential mortgage for failure to properly disclose payment schedule.
  • Johnson v. Thomas

    342 Ill.App.3d 382, 794 N.E.2d 919 (1st Dist. 2003): Homeowner defended mortgage foreclosure action by rescinding mortgage financing home improvement work as a result of irregularities in disclosure documents.

  • Handy v. Anchor Mortgage Corp.

    464 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2006): Homeowner permitted to rescind residential mortgage because of inconsistencies in notices of right to cancel.

  • Walker v. Wallace Auto Sales, Inc.

    155 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 1998), and Balderos v. City Chevrolet, 214 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2000): Automobile purchasers stated claims under Truth in Lending Act against car dealers where dealers increased price of cars to pass-on charges imposed on dealer by automobile finance company as condition of purchasing retail installment contracts from dealer.

  • Wendorf v. Landers

    755 F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.Ill. 2010): Addresses various issues relating to gym membership contracts and use of electronic funds transfers to obtain payments under such contracts.

  • Williams v. Chartwell Financial Services, Ltd.

    204 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2000): Truth in Lending Act case; lender understated interest rates by requiring loan proceeds to be deposited as “collateral,” reducing amount of money consumer had use of.

  • Adams v. Plaza Finance Co., Inc.

    168 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 1999): Court held that insurance protecting the creditor against the consumer's default is a finance charge and must always be disclosed as such.

  • Autry v. Northwest Premium Services, Inc.

    144 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1998): Terms of insurance premium finance agreements must be disclosed in compliance with Truth in Lending Act.

  • Davis v. Cash for Payday, Inc.

    193 F.R.D. 518 (N.D.Ill. 2000): Check obtained by lender in connection with payday loan creates security interest which must be disclosed as such under the Truth in Lending Act.

  • Wang v. Williams

    343 Ill. App. 3d 495; 797 N.E.2d 179 (5th Dist. 2003): Right to return of security deposit with interest conferred by the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act cannot be waived through lease provisions.

  • Dickson v. West Koke Mill Vill. P'Ship

    329 Ill. App. 3d 341; 769 N.E.2d 971 (4th Dist. 2002): Another case under the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act; landlord cannot disregard law, wait until it is sued, and then tender interest without statutory penalty for nonpayment.

  • Kagan v. Waldheim Cemetery Co.

    2016 IL App (1st) 131274, 53 N.E.3d 259: Application of Cemetery Care Act, which requires payments for perpetual care at cemeteries to be held in trust.

  • Elder v. Coronet Ins. Co.

    201 Ill.App.3d 733, 558 N.E.2d 1312 (1st Dist. 1990): Held that an insurance company could not require insureds making claims to submit to polygraph tests.

  • Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

    973 F.Supp.2d 905 (N.D.Ill. 2013): Class action alleging that chicken jerky dog treats manufactured in the People’s Republic of China were dangerous and caused plaintiffs' dogs to become ill or die. All of the illnesses were similar, with most of the affected dogs experiencing symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, and kidney failure.

  • Barnes v. Fleet National Bank, N.A.

    370 F.3d 164 (1st Cir. 2004): Court held that defendant failed to properly notify class of changes in account terms.