ILNews

Attorney: Marion County small claims 'forum shopping' problems persist

Dave Stafford
February 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Chicago attorney who has filed at least six federal class-action lawsuits alleging collections companies engaged in “forum shopping” in Marion County Small Claims Courts said the practice appears to be continuing despite township court reforms announced last year.

Daniel Edelman of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC has brought the suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The suits allege that collections companies engaged in practices of filing actions in a particular township court against defendants who neither lived in the township nor signed contracts in the townships where the collections actions were filed.

New small-claims court rules were announced in October and take effect in March, though courts have already implemented some of the changes.

“I have been informed of instances (of forum shopping) by various local attorneys,” Edelman said. He said it wasn’t clear whether new rules for township courts have had an impact on forum shopping.

“Our viewpoint was forum shopping could have been prohibited all along. All that was necessary was to enforce the federal restriction,” Edelman said.

The suits filed by Edelman are brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The act allows class-action suits that may recover a maximum of actual damages suffered by class members plus the lesser amount of 1 percent of the net worth of defendants or $500,000. Individual litigants may recover up to $1,000 plus actual damages.

Settlements are pending court approval in two suits. Under terms of one proposed settlement, allegations of forum shopping would cost one set of defendants $43,000 in damages plus payment of plaintiffs’ legal fees. Another collections defendant would pay just over $2,700 in damages and $7,000 in attorney fees and costs.

The more sizeable proposed settlement is in Richard O. Bovey v. Medshield Inc., Jacob, Hammerle & Johnson, LLC, Derek F. Johnson, Jeffrey S. Jacob and Christopher Hammerle, 1:12-CV-728-DML. Richard Bovey’s suit alleges he is a Lawrence Township resident who incurred a medical debt in that township but was sued in Decatur Township.

The proposed settlement filed Jan. 17 calls for payment to anyone sued by any of the defendants in this case in a Marion County Small Claims Court from May 25, 2011, to June 8, 2012. According to the proposed settlement, Bovey will receive $4,500; four additional plaintiffs will receive $1,000 each; and $21,000 will be paid to a class fund. The settlement stipulates that the class fund represents 88 percent of the possible recoverable amount.

Defendants in Bovey identified about 7,100 class members. Plaintiff’s counsel estimates 10 percent of class members will submit a claim, in which case the payment per claimant would be about $30. The settlement includes plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs totaling $13,500.

In Theon C. Parker v. Inland Collection Services, 1:12-CV-924-TAB, the defense proposes to settle with 29 class members defined as those Inland Collection Services sued in a Marion County Small Claims Court between July 8, 2011, and Oct. 5, 2012. Theon Parker’s suit alleges that he is a resident of Hendricks County who was sued for a medical debt incurred in Pike Township, but the matter was filed in Decatur Township.

Under the proposed settlement filed Jan. 16, Parker and another named plaintiff would receive $1,000 each and the class members would be mailed checks in the amount of about $27 from a class fund of $729. The proposed class fund represents 100 percent of the possible recoverable amount under FDCPA. Defendants also would pay $7,000 in attorney fees and costs.

Edelman has brought similar actions involving collections filings in Franklin, Perry and Pike township courts.

Attorney Peter Velde of Kightlinger & Gray LLP in Indianapolis defended both suits in which settlement offers are pending as well as two other FDCPA actions brought by Edelman’s firm. Velde declined to comment on the pending settlements or similar litigation.

Defendants in both settlement proposals deny liability.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT