SE HABLA ESPAÑOL | MAP
312-739-4200
Contact Us

Contact Us


Representative Cases


Practice Areas


Our Office Location

Edelman, Combs, Latturner, & Goodwin, LLC

20 South Clark Street
Suite 1500

Chicago, IL 60603


info@edcombs.com
Phone: 312-739-4200
Fax: 312-419-0379


   

About the Firm

Know Your Rights

Consumers whose rights have been violated turn to the experienced consumer protection lawyers of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC. Consumers are invited to fax documents such as collection letters and loan documents to 312-419-0379 or contact us at 312-739-4200 or by email to schedule a consultation to discuss any of the following:

The consumer law firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, represents consumers and investors who have been injured by illegal conduct of:

  • Mortgage companies
  • Credit bureaus (consumer reporting agencies)
  • Collection agencies and lawyers
  • Banks
  • Finance companies and other lenders
  • Credit card issuers
  • Insurance companies
  • Automobile manufacturers and dealers
  • Other businesses.

Potential clients are invited to compare their consumer legal concerns with the list of potential claims on this Web site. Consumer alerts, notices, news and opinions offer further information regarding areas of consumer law advocacy by Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC. Examine a sampling of the legal opinions resulting from past cases handled by our firm. Click here to review the qualifications of the distinguished and accomplished consumer protection lawyers of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

Most cases handled by Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, are taken on a contingency basis. Certain costs such as filing fees or appraisals may be the responsibility of the client. Contact an attorney at our firm through this Web site or by phone to schedule a consultation or document evaluation.

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY

Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, L.L.C. represents injured consumers and investors. It brings both individual and class actions on behalf of people injured by illegal conduct of mortgage companies, credit bureaus (consumer reporting agencies), collection agencies and lawyers, banks, finance companies and other lenders, credit card issuers, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers and dealers, and other businesses.

The types of cases handled include predatory lending, interest overcharges and “junk fees” on mortgages, wrongful foreclosure of mortgages, actions to rescind mortgages, inaccurate credit reports, automobile cases involving breach of warranty, concealment of prior damage or prior use as rental car, and odometer rollbacks, and “bait and switch” practices. The firm also brings civil rights and discrimination cases involving fair housing and other economic issues.

Almost all cases are taken on a contingency. Prospective clients are sometimes asked to pay filing fees or the cost of an expert where necessary to evaluate their case (mainly automobile and home improvement cases).

CASES

Since its inception, the firm has recovered more than $500 million for consumers. The types of cases handled by the firm are illustrated by the following:

1. Predatory lending practices: The firm has brought numerous cases challenging predatory mortgage and “payday” lending practices. Livingston v. Fast Cash USA, Inc., 753 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Sup. Ct. 2001);Williams v. Chartwell Fin. Servs., 204 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2000); Parker v. 1-800 Bar None, a Financial Corp., Inc., 01 C 4488, 2002 WL 215530 (N.D.Ill., Feb 12, 2002); Gilkey v. Central Clearing Co., 202 F.R.D. 515 (E.D.Mich. 2001);Van Jackson v. Check ‘N Go of Ill., Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 731 (N.D.Ill. 2000), later opinion, 193 F.R.D. 544 (N.D.Ill. 2000), 123 F.Supp. 2d 1079 (N.D.Ill. 2000), later opinion, 123 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D.Ill. 2000); Henry v. Cash Today, Inc., 199 F.R.D. 566 (S.D.Tex. 2000); Donnelly v. Illini Cash Advance, Inc., 00 C 94, 2000 WL 1161076, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11906 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 14, 2000); Jones v. Kunin, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6380 (S.D.Ill., May 1, 2000); Davis v. Cash for Payday, 193 F.R.D. 518 (N.D.Ill. 2000); Reese v. Hammer Fin. Corp., 99 C 716, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18812, 1999 WL 1101677(N.D.Ill., Nov. 29, 1999); Pinkett v. Moolah Loan Co., 99 C 2700, 1999 WL 1080596, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17276 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 1, 1999); Guitierrez v. Devon Fin. Servs., 99 C 2647, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18696 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 6, 1999); Vance v. National Benefit Ass’n, 99 C 2627, 1999 WL 731764, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13846 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 26, 1999); Smith v. Keycorp Mtge., Inc., 151 B.R.870 (N.D.Ill. 1992); Armstrong v. Edelson, 718 F.Supp. 1372 (N.D.Ill. 1989); Newman v. 1st 1440 Investment, Inc., 89 C 6708, 1990 WL125369, 1990 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10989 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 21, 1990); Source One Mortgage Services Corp. v. Jones, 88 C 8441, 1994 WL 13664, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 333 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 13, 1994); DeLeon v. Beneficial Const. Co., 998 F.Supp. 859 (N.D.Ill. 1998), later opinion, 55 F.Supp.2d 819 (N.D.Ill. 1999); Hastings v. Fidelity Mortg. Decisions Corp., 984 F.Supp. 600 (N.D.Ill. 1997).

2. Mortgage charges and servicing practices: The firm has been involved in dozens of cases, mostly class actions, complaining of illegal charges on mortgages and improper servicing practices. These include MDL-899, In re Mortgage Escrow Deposit Litigation, and MDL-1604, In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, as well as the Fairbanks mortgage servicing litigation. Decisions in the firm’s mortgage cases include: ; Hamm v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 506 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2007); Handy v. Anchor Mortg. Corp., 464 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2006); Christakos v. Intercounty Title Co., 196 F.R.D. 496 (N.D.Ill. 2000); Johnstone v. Bank of America, N.A., 173 F.Supp.2d 809 (N.D.Ill. 2001); Leon v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 164 F.Supp.2d 1034 (N.D.Ill. 2001); Williamson v. Advanta Mortg. Corp., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16374 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 5, 1999); McDonald v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 99 C 6884, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11496 (N.D.Ill., June 22, 2000); Metmor Financial, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 23848 (Nev.Sup.Ct., Apr. 27, 1993); GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Stapleton, 236 Ill.App.3d 486, 603 N.E.2d 767 (1st Dist. 1992), leave to appeal denied, 248 Ill.2d 641, 610 N.E.2d 1262 (1993); Leff v. Olympic Fed. S. & L. Ass’n, 1986 WL 10636 (N.D.Ill. 1986); Aitken v. Fleet Mtge. Corp., 90 C 3708, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 10420 (N.D.Ill. 1991), and 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1687 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 12, 1992); Poindexter v. National Mtge. Corp., 91 C 4223, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 19643 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 23, 1991), later opinion, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 5396 (N.D.Ill., April 24, 1995); Sanders v. Lincoln Service Corp., 91 C 4542,1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4454 (N.D.Ill. April 5, 1993); Robinson v. Empire of America Realty Credit Corp., 90 C 5063, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2084 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 20, 1991); In re Mortgage Escrow Deposit Litigation, M.D.L. 899, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12746 (N.D.Ill., Sept. 8, 1994); Greenberg v. Republic Federal S. & L. Ass’n, 94 C 3789, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 5866 (N.D.Ill., May 1, 1995).

The recoveries in the escrow overcharge cases alone are over $250 million. Leff was the seminal case on mortgage escrow overcharges. The escrow litigation had a substantial effect on industry practices, resulting in limitations on the amounts which mortgage companies held in escrow.

3. Automobile sales and financing practices: The firm has brought many cases challenging practices relating to automobile sales and financing, including:

a. Misrepresentation of amounts disbursed for extended warranties:.Taylor v. Quality Hyundai, Inc., 150 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1998); Gibson v. Bob Watson Chevrolet-Geo, 112 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 199); Grimaldi v. Webb, 282 Ill.App.3d 174, 668 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1996), leave to appeal denied, 169 Ill.2d 566 (1996); Slawson v. Currie Motors Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 94 C 2177, 1995 WL 22716, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 451 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 5, 1995); Cirone-Shadow v. Union Nissan, Inc., 94 C 6723, 1995 WL 51547, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1379 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 3, 1995), later opinion, 1995 WL 238680, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 5232 (N.D.Ill., April 20, 1995) (same); Chandler v. Southwest Jeep-Eagle, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 302 (N.D.Ill. 1995); Shields v. Lefta, Inc., 888 F.Supp. 891 (N.D.Ill. 1995).

These cases also had a substantial effect on industry practices. The warranty cases, such as Grimaldi, Gibson, Slawson, Cirone-Shadow, Chandler, and Shields, resulted in the Federal Reserve Board’s revision of applicable disclosure requirements, so as to prevent car dealers from representing that the charge for an extended warranty was being disbursed to a third party when that was not in fact the case.

b. Improper finance charge computations. Zwayer v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 279 Ill.App.3d 906, 665 N.E.2d 843 (1st Dist. 1996).

c. Spot delivery/ “bait and switch”/ “yo-yo” sales. Diaz v. Westgate Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16300 (N.D.Ill. 1994); Cardenas v. Classic Chevrolet, Inc., 00 C 2020, 2000 WL 1672317, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16873 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 2, 2000); Grimaldi v. Webb, 282 Ill.App.3d 174, 668 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1996), leave to appeal denied, 169 Ill.2d 566 (1996).

d. Force placed insurance. Bermudez v. First of America Bank Champion, N.A., 860 F.Supp. 580 (N.D.Ill. 1994); Travis v. Boulevard Bank, 93 C 6847, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14615 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 13, 1994), modified, 880 F.Supp. 1226 (N.D.Ill., 1995); Moore v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 884 F. Supp. 288 (N.D.Ill. 1995).

e. Improper obligation of cosigners. Lee v. Nationwide Cassell, 174 Ill.2d 540, 675 N.E.2d 599 (1996); Taylor v. Trans Acceptance Corp., 267 Ill.App.3d 562, 641 N.E.2d 907 (1st Dist. 1994), leave to appeal denied, 159 Ill.2d 581, 647 N.E.2d 1017 (1995).

f. Sale of defective vehicles. Lipinski v. Martin J. Kelly Oldsmobile, Inc., 325 Ill.App.3d 1139, 759 N.E.2d 66 (1st Dist. 2001).

g. Evasion of FTC holder rule. Brown v. LaSalle Northwest Nat’l Bank, 148 F.R.D. 584 (N.D.Ill. 1993), 820 F.Supp. 1078 (N.D.Ill. 1993), and 92 C 8392, 1993 WL 313563, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11419 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 13, 1993).

4. Other consumer credit issues: The firm has also brought a number of other Truth in Lending and consumer credit cases, involving such issues as:

a. The McCarran Ferguson Act exemption. Autry v. Northwest Premium Services, Inc., 144 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 1998).

b. Loan flipping. Emery v. American General, 71 F.3d 1343 (7th Cir. 1995); Chandler v. American General Finance, Inc., 2002 WL 464909 (Ill.App., 1st Dist. 2002). Emery and Chandler limited the pernicious practice of “loan flipping,” in which consumers are solicited for new loans and are then refinanced, with “short” credits for unearned finance charges and insurance premiums being given through use of the “Rule of 78s.”

c. Home improvement financing practices. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v. Hicks, 214 Ill.App.3d 398, 574 N.E.2d 15 (1st Dist. 1991), leave to appeal denied, 141 Ill.2d 539, 580 N.E.2d 112; Heastie v. Community Bank of Greater Peoria, 690 F.Supp. 716 (N.D.Ill. 1989), later opinion, 125 F.R.D. 669 (N.D.Ill. 1990), later opinions, 727 F.Supp. 1133 (N.D.Ill. 1990), and 727 F.Supp. 1140 (N.D.Ill. 1990). Heastie granted certification of a class of over 6,000 in a home improvement fraud case.

d. Arbitration clauses. Wrightson v. ITT Financial Services, 617 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

e. Insurance packing. Elliott v. ITT Corp., 764 F.Supp. 102 (N.D.Ill. 1990), later opinion, 150 B.R. 36 (N.D.Ill. 1992).

5. Automobile leases: The firm has brought a number of a cases alleging illegal charges and improper disclosures on automobile leases. Decisions in these cases include Lundquist v. Security Pacific Automotive Financial Services Corp., Civ. No. 5:91-754 (TGFD) (D.Conn.), aff’d, 993 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1993); Kedziora v. Citicorp Nat’l Services, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 516 (N.D.Ill. 1991), later opinion, 844 F.Supp. 1289 (N.D.Ill. 1994), later opinion, 883 F.Supp. 1144 (N.D.Ill. 1995), later opinion, 1995 WL 506061, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12137 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 18, 1995), later opinion, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14054 (N.D.Ill., Sept. 25, 1995); Johnson v. Steven Sims Subaru and Subaru Leasing, 92 C 6355, 1993 WL 761231, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8078 (N.D.Ill., June 9, 1993), and 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11694 (N.D.Ill., August 20, 1993); McCarthy v. PNC Credit Corp., 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 21719 (D.Conn., May 27, 1992); Kinsella v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 91 C 8014, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1405, 1992 WL 26908 (N.D.Ill. 1992); Highsmith v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 18 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 1994); Black v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc., 94 C 3055, 1994 WL 424112, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11158 (N.D.Ill., August 10, 1994); Simon v. World Omni Leasing Inc., 146 F.R.D. 197 (S.D.Ala. 1992).

Lundquist and Highsmith are leading cases; both held that commonly-used lease forms violated the Consumer Leasing Act. As a result of the Lundquist case, the Federal Reserve Board completely revamped the disclosure requirements applicable to auto leases, resulting in vastly improved disclosures to consumers.

6. Collection practices: The firm has brought a number of cases under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, both class and individual. Decisions in these cases include: Jenkins v. Heintz, 25 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 1994), aff’d 514 U.S. 291 (1995) (FDCPA coverage of attorneys); Fields v. Wilber Law Firm, P.C., 383 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2004); Schlosser v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2003) (coverage of debt buyers); Peter v. GC Servs. L.P., 310 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2002); Nielsen v. Dickerson, 307 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2002) (attorney letters without attorney involvement); Boyd v. Wexler, 275 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2001); Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Revenue Management Corp., 169 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1999); Keele v. Wexler & Wexler, 1996 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3253 (N.D.Ill., March 18, 1996) (class), 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 13215 (N.D.Ill. 1995) (merits), aff’d, 149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 1998); Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997); Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Services, Inc., 147 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 1998); Young v. Citicorp Retail Services, Inc., .97-9397, 1998 U.S.App. LEXIS 20268 (2nd Cir. 1998); Charles v. Lundgren & Assocs., P.C., 119 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1997); Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. 1996), aff’g Avila v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 94 C 3234, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 461 (N.D.Ill., Jan. 10, 1995), later opinion, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1502 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 6, 1995), later opinion, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 17117 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 14, 1995); Tolentino v. Friedman, 833 F.Supp. 697 (N.D.Ill. 1993), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 46 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1995); Ramirez v. Apex Fin. Mgmt., LLC, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Cotton v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 07 C 5005, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49042 (N.D.Ill., June 26, 2008); Buford v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 2d 800 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Martin v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, 07 C 4745, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25904 (N.D.Ill., March 28, 2008); Ramirez v. Palisades Collection LLC, 250 F.R.D. 366 (N.D.Ill. 2008); Hernandez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 04 C 7844, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16054 (N.D.Ill., March 6, 2007, amended Sept. 25, 2007) (balance transfer program); Blakemore v. Pekay, 895 F.Supp.972 (N.D.Ill. 1995); Oglesby v. Rotche, 93 C 4183, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 15687 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 4, 1993), later opinion, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4866 (N.D.Ill., April 15, 1994); Laws v. Cheslock, 98 C 6403, 1999 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3416 (N.D.Ill., Mar. 8, 1999); Davis v. Commercial Check Control, Inc., 98 C 631, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1682 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 12, 1999); Hoffman v. Partners in Collections, Inc., 93 C 4132, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 12702 (N.D.Ill., Sept. 15, 1993); Vaughn v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., 93 C 4151, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 2172 (N.D.Ill., March 1, 1994), adopted, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1358 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 3, 1995); Beasley v. Blatt, 93 C 4978, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 9383 (N.D.Ill., July 14, 1994); Taylor v. Fink, 93 C 4941, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16821 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 23, 1994); Gordon v. Fink, 93 C 4152, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1509 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 7, 1995); Brujis v. Shaw, 876 F.Supp. 198 (N.D.Ill. 1995).

Jenkins v. Heintz is a leading decision regarding the liability of attorneys under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mr. Edelman argued it before the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit. Avila v. Rubin is a leading decision on phony “attorney letters.”

7. Class action procedure: Important decisions include Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc., 201 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000); Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999); Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (7th Cir. 1997); and Gordon v. Boden, 224 Ill.App.3d 195, 586 N.E.2d 461 (1st Dist. 1991).Gordon v. Boden is the first decision approving “fluid recovery” in an Illinois class action.

8. Bankruptcy: The firm brought a number of cases complaining that money was being systematically collected on discharged debts, in some cases through the use of invalid reaffirmation agreements, including the national class actions against Sears and General Electric. Conley v. Sears, Roebuck, 1:97cv11149 (D.Mass); Fisher v. Lechmere Inc., 1:97cv3065 (N.D.Ill.). These cases were settled and resulted in recovery by nationwide classes. Cathleen Combs successfully argued the first Court of Appeals case to hold that a bankruptcy debtor induced to pay a discharged debt by means of an invalid reaffirmation agreement may sue to recover the payment. Bessette v. Avco Financial Services, 230 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2000).

9. Landlord-tenant: The firm has brought more than 20 class actions against landlords to enforce tenants’ rights. Claims include failing to pay interest on security deposits or commingling security deposits. Reported decisions include Wang v. Williams, 343 Ill. App. 3d 495; 797 N.E.2d 179 (5th Dist. 2003); Dickson v. West Koke Mill Vill. P’Ship, 329 Ill. App. 3d 341; 769 N.E.2d 971 (4th Dist. 2002); and Onni v. Apt. Inv. & Mgmt. Co., 344 Ill. App. 3d 1099; 801 N.E.2d 586 (2nd Dist. 2003).

10. Insurance Litigation: Often securing recovery for a class requires enforcement of the rights under the defendant’s insurance policy. The firm has extensive experience with such litigation. Reported decisions in such cases include: American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. C.M.A. Mortg., Inc., 1:06-cv-1044-SEB-JMS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30233 (S.D.Ind. March 31, 2008); Record-A-Hit, Inc. v. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 377 Ill. App. 3d 642; 880 N.E.2d 205 (1st Dist. 2007); Pietras v. Sentry Ins. Co., 06 C 3576, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16015 (N.D.Ill., March 6, 2007), later opinion, 513 F. Supp. 2d 983 (N.D.Ill. 2007); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 06 C 2092, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65339 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 31, 2007); Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Hose & Fitting, Inc., 06 C 5256, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45685 (N.D.Ill., June 21, 2007): Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Easy Drop Off, LLC, 06 C 4286, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42380 (N.D.Ill., June 4, 2007).

11. Debtors Rights: Important decisions include: Ramirez v. Palisades Collection LLC, 07 C 3840, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48722 (N.D.Ill., June 23, 2008) (Illinois statute of limitations for credit card debts); Parkis v. Arrow Fin. Servs., 07 C 410, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1212 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 8, 2008) (same); Rawson v. Credigy Receivables, Inc., 05 C 6032, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6450 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 16, 2006) (same); Jones v. Kunin, 99-818-GPM, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6380 (S.D.Ill., May 1, 2000) (scope of Illinois bad check statute); Qualkenbush v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 219 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (failure to allow cosigner to take over obligation prior to collection action); Wilson v. Harris N.A., 06 C 5840, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65345 (N.D.Ill., September 4, 2007).

12. Telephone Consumer Protection Act: The firm has brought a number of cases under the “junk fax” and “spam text message” provisions of the statute. Important decisions include: Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005); Sadowski v. Med1 Online, LLC, 07 C 2973, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41766 (N.D.Ill., May 27, 2008); Benedia v. Super Fair Cellular, Inc., 07 C 01390, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71911 (N.D.Ill., September 26, 2007); Centerline Equip. Corp. v. Banner Pers. Serv., 545 F. Supp. 2d 768 (N.D.Ill. 2008).

13. Some of the other reported decisions in our cases include: Elder v. Coronet Ins. Co., 201 Ill.App.3d 733, 558 N.E.2d 1312 (1st Dist. 1990); Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. District Court, 778 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1989); Disher v. Fulgoni, 124 Ill.App.3d 257, 464 N.E.2d 639, 643 (1st Dist. 1984); Harman v. Lyphomed, Inc., 122 F.R.D. 522 (N.D.Ill. 1988); and Haslam v. Lefta, Inc., 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3623 (N.D.Ill., March 25, 1994).

Elder v. Coronet Insurance held that an insurance company’s reliance on lie detectors to process claims was an unfair and deceptive trade practice.