United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐2983 JACK W. COOPER, Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL‐MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Defendant‐Appellee, APPEAL OF: CELETHA C. CHATMAN, MICHAEL J. WOOD, and COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD., Appellants. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:17‐cv‐00773 — Manish S. Shah, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 19, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 29, 2022 ____________________

Before WOOD, HAMILTON, and JACKSON‐AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. This appeal challenges sanctions imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 2 No. 18‐2983 U.S.C. § 1927. It is related to our decision today in No. 18‐2358, an appeal in a separate civil action between the same parties, Cooper v. Retrieval‐Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. (Cooper I). In Cooper I, plaintiff Jack Cooper sued defendant Retrieval‐Mas‐ ters Creditors Bureau (RMCB) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. While that case was pending, Cooper filed this separate lawsuit against RMCB asserting an additional violation of the FDCPA arising from the same debt that was the subject of Cooper I. The district court dismissed this Cooper II case with preju‐ dice on the theory that the new claims were improperly split from Cooper I. Cooper v. Retrieval‐Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., No. 17‐cv‐773, 2017 WL 11350966 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2017). Pur‐ suant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the district court also sanctioned Cooper’s counsel, Celetha Chatman and Michael Wood, and their firm, the Community Lawyers Group, Ltd., for filing a misleading complaint and engaging in a pattern of improper litigation practices. Cooper v. Retrieval‐Masters Cred‐ itors Bureau, Inc., No. 17‐cv‐773, 2018 WL 8898621 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2018). Cooper’s counsel have appealed the district court’s sanctions order. We reverse. I. Facts and Procedural Background A. The Case on the Merits In March 2016, plaintiff Jack Cooper sued RMCB after he received a letter from RMCB in February 2016 seeking to col‐ lect a consumer debt. Cooper alleged that the letter violated the FDCPA by falsely threatening to report his debt to credit bureaus. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) & (10). While that matter was pending, Cooper filed this separate action against RMCB in January 2017 claiming additional violations of the FDCPA No. 18‐2983 3 arising from the same debt. The complaint in Cooper II alleged that, after Cooper I was filed and while it was pending, RMCB had misrepresented the amount of his debt and attempted to collect a fee that was not authorized by law or any agreement in violation of § 1692e(2)(a) & (10) and § 1692f(1). Cooper’s complaint asserted that he visited RMCB’s website in Decem‐ ber 2016 and that the website included a notice that individu‐ als who made payments by credit card or online had to pay a $4.95 “convenience fee.” RMCB moved to dismiss the Cooper II complaint, arguing both that it was improper claim splitting and that Cooper lacked standing to sue. The court granted RMCB’s motion, reasoning that Cooper had improperly split his claims against RMCB over its misleading debt collection activities and there was “no good reason” to allow Cooper to continue with the second suit arising from the same dispute in Cooper I. Cooper II, 2017 WL 11350966, at *2. As a result, the court entered a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Cooper did not appeal that judgmen