MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. DOW, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff Jeremy Ramirez filed a putative class action lawsuit against Defendant AP Account Services, LLC on March 2, 2016, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [35] and Plaintiff's motion for class certification [4]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss [35]. Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseded original complaint [20] is stricken as moot. This case is set for further status hearing on January 24, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

I. Background

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") [34], which is the operative complaint before the Court. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") by attempting to collect a debt that was barred by a five-year statute of limitations pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/13-205. According to Plaintiff, the debt is a balance owed on a checking account. Plaintiff contends that Defendant sent him a letter on January 7, 2016 attempting to collect the debt, despite the fact that more than five years had elapsed since the last payment or activity on the account. [34, at ¶ 8, 9, 11, Exhibit A.] The January 7, 2016 letter had the heading "In Re: Settlement Offer, Technology Credit Union," and states Plaintiff's account number. [Id. at Exhibit A.] The letter states:

Plaintiff alleges that the January 7, 2016 letter implies that the debt is legally enforceable by offering settlement and that nothing in the letter disclosed that the debt was barred by the statute of limitations and not legally enforceable. [Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.] According to Plaintiff, he was "damaged in that he was confused and disturbed by the possibility that he could be sued in relation to the debt." [Id. at ¶ 13.] Attached to the SAC is Technology Credit Union's Member Handbook ("the Member Handbook"). [34, Exhibit B.] The Member Handbook explains that it is "a disclosure and master agreement of the terms of all [Technology Credit Union] Accounts." [Id., at 1.]

Plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification, arguing that it is Defendant's policy and practice to send letters seeking to collect time-barred debts that do not disclose that the debt is time-barred and that this creates a common factual link and gives rise to the common legal question of whether Defendant's letters violate the FDCPA. [4, at 6.] On July 14, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [35.]

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the complaint first must comply with Rule 8(a) by providing "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), such that the defendant is given "fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) (alteration in original). Second, the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to raise the possibility of relief above the "speculative level." E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or a `formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). However, "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (alteration in original). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper "when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558. In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true all of Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor. Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007).

B. Analysis

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's SAC should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to Defendant, Plaintiff applied the incorrect statute of limitations and under the correct statute of limitations the debt in question was not time-barred. Plaintiff submits that the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applies. This statute provides that

735 ILCS 5/13-205. In contrast, Defendant contends that 735 ILCS 5/13-206, which applies to written obligations and provides for a ten-year statute of limitations, should apply to the debt at issue. 735 ILCS 5/13-206 states, in relevant part:

735 ILCS 5/13-206.

To support this argument, Defendant contends that the Member Handbook attached to the complaint evidences the indebtedness of Plaintiff in writing and thus the ten-year statute of limitations should apply. The Member Handbook states that "all members must meet their obligations to the Credit Union in a timely manner. * * * You will not allow Credit Union share accounts you hold to fall below a zero balance. If you do inadvertently overdraw your account, and you do not have a pre-arranged and available source of overdraft protection, you agree to immediately restore any negative balance upon our written demand." [Id. at 3-4.] According to Defendant, Plaintiff agreed to the terms of the Member Handbook by becoming a member of Technology Credit Union, and the terms of the Handbook "make clear in writing that Plaintiff was required to promptly make good on any negative balance in his checking account." [36, at 4.]

In considering the applicability of the five-year statute of limitations in Section 13-205 or the ten-year statute of limitations in Section 13-206, Illinois courts "follow a strict interpretation of the meaning of a written agreement." Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC v. Feltman, 909 N.E.2d 876, 880 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009); see also Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1001 (7th Cir. 1998). "A contract will only be deemed written if parties are identified and all the essential terms are in writing and ascertainable from the instrument itself." Id. If parol evidence is necessary to identify the parties or essential terms, "the contract is considered an oral contract for purposes of the statute of limitations." Portfolio Acquisitions, 909 N.E.2d at 880 (citing Brown v. Goodman, 498 N.E.2d 854 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)); see also Kranzler v. Saltzman, 942 N.E.2d 722, 725 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) ("Where the writings attached to the complaint do not contain the essential terms of the contract, even if the essential terms may be easily ascertained elsewhere, the contract is not written but oral."). The essential terms of a promise to pay are: "(1) the parties to the agreement, (2) the nature of the transaction, (3) the amount in question, and (4) at least a reasonable implication of an intention to repay the debt." Kranzler, 942 N.E.2d at 726.

Here, Defendant argues that "[g]iven the explicit requirements of the Handbook, parol evidence would not be necessary to prove up any of the essential terms" of the agreement. [36, at 7.] Defendant contends that it is clear that the parties to the agreement are Credit Union and its members, which include Plaintiff. Defendant further argues that the nature of the transaction is the creation of a negative balance on Plaintiff's account, as set forth in the Handbook. Defendant argues that the amount in question is "any amount of negative balance" and that although additional written documentation may be necessary to prove the exact amount now owing, that does not undermine the applicability of Section 13-206. Finally, Defendant alleges that a reasonable implication of an intention to repay the debt is clear because Plaintiff agreed to the prompt payment obligation set out in the Handbook.

This argument fails because the Member Handbook does not set forth the essential terms of the agreement between Plaintiff and Technology Credit Union. The Member Handbook does not identify the parties to the agreement, as it does not name Plaintiff but only generally describes the members of the credit union. Thus, parol evidence would be required to establish that Plaintiff was a member of the Technology Credit Union and thus subject to the terms of the Handbook. Further, the nature of the transaction is not entirely clear from the Member Handbook. The Handbook attached to the complaint is not the version that was in place at the time Plaintiff opened his checking account, and the Handbook states that "we can modify our agreements with you by giving notice required by law," [34, Exhibit B, at 2], so parol evidence would be necessary to ascertain the terms to which Plaintiff consented. Additionally, the amount of debt in question is not stated in the Handbook. Thus, since the essential terms are not set forth in the Member Handbook, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim that the contract is an oral contract to which the five-year statute of limitations in Section 13-205 applies.

Although the debt at issue in the case at hand is a balance owed on a checking account, cases involving credit card debt are instructive by analogy. Illinois courts have held that credit card contracts are oral contracts subject to the five-year statute of limitations in Section 13-205, not the ten-year statute of limitations in Section 13-206. Portfolio Acquisitions, 909 N.E.2d at 883. In Portfolio Acquisitions, the court explained that the credit card application form and terms and conditions attached to the complaint did not show that there was a written contract because "parol evidence would still be required to show all essential terms and conditions of the contract. Parol evidence would also be required to show the relationship between the parties and demonstrate defendant's receipt and acceptance of the essential terms." Id. at 884; see also Toth v. Mansell, 566 N.E.2d 730, 733 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (holding that invoices, monthly statements, and ledgers did not constitute other written evidence of indebtedness because they could not establish the essential elements of a promise to pay).

Defendant argues that cases applying the FDCPA to credit card debt are inapplicable because the case at hand does not involve credit card debt and instead involves a balance owed on a checking account. Defendant further contends that the holdings of cases involving credit card debt rely on "the unique nature of credit card agreements." Defendant relies on Portfolio Acquisitions, in which the court discussed how the "bank credit card system involves a tripartite relationship between the issuer bank, the cardholder, and merchants participating in the system." 909 N.E.2d at 881 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court is not convinced by Defendant's attempt to distinguish these cases. Just as a credit card agreement stating the terms and conditions does not identify the essential terms of the agreement between the credit card holder and the bank without parol evidence, the Member Handbook in this case does not identify the essential terms of the agreement between Plaintiff and Technology Credit Union.1 Thus, applying a strict interpretation of the meaning of a written agreement for statute of limitations purposes, as Illinois courts have instructed, see Portfolio Acquisitions, 909 N.E.2d at 880, Defendant has not demonstrated that there is a written contract or other written evidence of indebtedness sufficient to invoke section 13-206. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss [35]. Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseded original complaint [20] is stricken as moot. This case is set for further status hearing on January 24, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.