Powers v. Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 13-2831 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCMS collects consumer debts, subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). CMS commences consumer state-court collection actions by filing standard-form complaints that allege, that “more than 90 days have elapsed since the presentation of this claim” to the consumer and seek prejudgment interest and attorney fees “as allowable by law.” When named plaintiffs contested CMS’s complaints, CMS served nearly identical discovery requests seeking disclosure of detailed employment and financial information. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against CMS and in-house CMS attorneys, claiming that CMS’s standard-form pleadings violate the FDCPA and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. In certifying four classes, the district court agreed that the predominant common question was whether the defendants sent each class member standard collection complaints and discovery requests, which violate the FDCPA and NCPA. The four classes consist of persons who received a county court collection complaint or discovery requests seeking to collect a debt “for personal, family, or household purposes,” or had such a collection action pending during the applicable limitations periods. The Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the court failed to conduct the “rigorous analysis . . . of what the parties must prove” that FRCP 23 requires.
Court Description: Civil case - Class Actions. In this action alleging defendant's standard-form complaints and discovery requests violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the court erred in certifying four classes of Nebraska consumers as the court did not conduct the rigorous analysis of what plaintiffs must prove to prevail on their facial invalidity theories; the standard-form complaint classes do not meet the commonality, predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23; class certification of the standard-form discovery requests was also improper because plaintiffs' facial invalidity claims do not meet the commonality and predominance requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.