not confused. (Doc. 49, Exh. 16, # 26). In addition to the above mentioned admission, the Court notes that the Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she read the state court complaint, and that she “pretty much” understood it. (Doc. 49, Exh. 3, p40). However, she also found the title “complaint for money loaned” to be confusing (Id., at 41). She testified that she did not understand paragraph 2 of the state court complaint wherein it says “[t]here is presently due the plaintiff from the defendant on the money loaned on defendant’s charge card debt.” (Id. at 4S). However, the Court does not find that this testimony alone, without more evidence, supports that a genuine issue of fact exists. See Pettit v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., 211 F.3d 1057, 1061-62 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Had the state court complaint stated only
holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that a plaintiffs selfserving deposition testimony was not enough for her fdcpa claim to survive summary judgment but that a consumer survey may have been sufficient holding that a fourmonth interval was sufficient to support an allegation of a causal connection strong enough to survive a summary judgment motion