Demarais v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., No. 16-3173 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging that Gurstel violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d), while collecting a consumer debt. The court held that plaintiff's brief did in fact challenge the district court's statute-of-limitations holding, and the district court should have focused on plaintiff's allegation and determined whether he plausibly alleged that Gurstel violated the FDCPA on that date. The court also held that plaintiff plausibly pleaded that Gurstel threatened to go to trial, but did not intend to proceed to trial when requesting the continuance, in violation of section 1692e(5), and the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's claim that Gurstel's letter and discovery requests violated section 1692f(1). Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Beam and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Dept Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff's allegations concerning defendant's actions were sufficient to allege concrete injuries in fact, and he had standing to sue; the district court erred in determining plaintiff's action was time-barred as separate communications can create separate causes of action arising from collection of a single debt; plaintiff's complaint plausibly pled that defendant threatened to take an action - go to trial - it did not intend to take and plausibly pled a violation of Section 1692e; the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim that defendant's letter and discovery requests concerning a dismissed action violated Section 1692f(1). Judge Beam concurs in the judgment.
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.