Hinkle v. Midland Credit Management Inc. et al, No. 3:2013cv00033 - Document 105 (S.D. Ga. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER granting 85 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 103 Motion to allow her errata sheet to be included in the record. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of defendants and close this case. Costs are taxed in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 1/6/15. (cmr)

Download PDF

Hinkle v. Midland Credit Management Inc. et al Doc. 105 I IJRIGINAL ]' ITiI THE T'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH#.!]. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DT'BLIN DIVISION ii i* il ; C i COUR;] _a ' l a' a r1r ?: r,. LlI 2015 A, ,tu JlAt{ CLIR TERI LYNN HINKLE, Plaintiff, cv 313-033 V. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT/ INC. / MI DLAND FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC. / Defendant s. ORDER Before -i,r-.1^-^-- the Court ^ ^ f- . , r L 1 ^L rd _ L l . s - < < a r l - a ^ c _ i ^ under the Fair 15 U.S.C. S 1692 et (*F.C.R.A."), Debt Coffectlon seq., D t-: un i ; - i the motlon is Factual F+ Fair surunary pro sef ( . .F . D . C . p . A . - ) , Act Credit Reporting Act the reasons stated GRANTED, TNTRODUCTION between a consumer and debt collection companies rega.rding two alleged debts and the "T-Mobife Midland proceed_Lnq Practices and the for Background This 1s a dispute and motion 15 U.S.C. S 1681 et seq. for r. A. Defendants, hv vj a--,_L,u JLrJgrrcr- herein, is account"). Funding/ (the '.GElMeijer account,, Midland Credit LLC, are wholly-owned Management, Inc. subsidiaries of Dockets.Justia.co Encore Capira nl -nr]sAc I GroLp, tLi q nf : r,al rz a< .-ol I F.- *ha . to CElver ier 1, settlement On credit 18.) Ex F.) offer of ^_ u u L ' 5 L d l r ^ .r._ iL r 1 9 rL i In the Defendants agencies 5240. ldentified, or collection with the (PL.'s fetter. in terms I he was paid M:r.h regardlng 1(- the in fulf. (Pl .'s roaarr cElMei jer (Pf.'s GE/Meijer account to t\/ i l extended a Defendants dccounL App. Lo of at Exs. :Lhe account as a (Id.) to coffect. account was paid in fulf October 1 debt On January 13, February App. of uEdDc,u GElMeijer : Inrnw un / p _ v ^i f - i . um ! t - a Lr 2AAB, Defendants' Ex. 10-b.) cotfeccjon (Id. ) 15, and March 16, 2009, Defendants reported account For 10.) enciLieS the n f' J "flagged," Defendants were attempting accordance of 15, Lhe ("CRAs";. debt Defendants December and a r _ -d. r c r . _ a , LJ -"rt_- letter, approximately I1 senL In December 2008, the GElMeijer ln ItIt 9, these to resolrrion a i n.[o.rmaLion regardinq i.eporting debt that .^€^-S Defendanrs seeking November ru-rnished Compf . AccounL 2008, Plainrill (Defs.' Ar|. t-r-^ ^^,-1 /)r.1^. o|| $400. ro "n6f endantS." On Ocr-ober letrer (Ans. Tnc. '--rn i u. to CRASthat Exs, at " i- - rh - ri . n jn < \ 18.) i n fnrm:r the After i an CRAS. (Id.) 2. The l-Mobr le Account On colfection December 2L, letter 20LL, to Plaintiff Defendants sent another seeking a resolution debt of the T- oPPru^frLtoLsf nac e n l had I ha T^ anrii rn hal arr-e of offered to Defendants "? )ww. J for Lhe account settle nrnrzi which account, Mobile < t l nt v . +/ approximately l I ^r"'i hd i nf^rm:r /l,-l !ru. \ / tha larr^- i ^n. (a) Current ba.Iance: $300.80; amount dnet $214.12; /'i\ nri ni n: I ^.. \'Ilnlacc rha rc'rai rri nrr rvru:, l i r l i rrsrt r ) i ! yoL -lerrs if I a MaM urirhin rhi af e -or-c: AaFr h^.f ,vrJu (e) ^ will On or the r,i collection )G disputing nnrr i ^h c i^l rh6ro^f - v Ir, r \ /i ur l debt wr ir.i ng, I l^ "-rn i < inn be to (30) wiLh.in :/-F l-hat the ,-li enrrrad MaM of the debt or a copy is a judgmenr ) and MCM r € \/a-r f j Cat ion ..rrh or afso about // .roditor. states that arv December 21 , 2ALI , account r -f o . - q t . i o - Dcfenoants the purpose of debt coflection. be used for T-Mobile Defendants. r,rl rz ^ridir^t The fetter obtain d el-arrc qnrrtc \.,-rr .li rh^t 1?Ol jn wriLing, wiLhin thirLy "Tf you request, (30) days after receiving this notlce, MCM wiff provide you with the name and address of l-La (Id.) i.a r/ assume this wilf obtain verification of a judgmenl (if there 'iudoment;" and rhirf z.jal^,t MCM, in noti fy j- a- nrlt rho MCM will thereof, valid; " "II T-M^l-\i ifrr er r c'r (d) it owner: Midland Funding, LLC, MCM; servicer: Current Current t-\ nrarl durinq a Plaintiff teleohone (Id. ) orally disputed wlth conversation (Am. Compf. 5t 20.) Defendants continued their activities 2n1? the after pl:intiff T-Mobile phone call. that mailed accounL and a letter informing (Id. to debt l, 22.) An Defendants them ot her intent to file Defendants placed attempting to Plaintiff's five resofve ca]1 telephone T-MobiLe the 1og shows that to Pfaintiff (Id. account. Defendants cafled at 36.) Plaintiff 6:40 pm B:52 pm 6:34 pm 10:36 an 6: 37 pm 1.800.825.8131 1.800.825.8131 1.800.825.8131 1.800.825.8131 1.800.825. 8131 \ Defendants reported 2AI2, flrom February 2al2 chrough March 2013, the T-Mobile account to CRAsas unpaid and (Ross Aff . !l 14.' Defs.' disputed. Defendants r-aari:* r-hrl- regarding' received D- ^._ntiff receivinq conducted an verrfied information this that they were filed a (Defs., notice from report ing they had recelved disputed (Defs.' debt. requested contention that Mot. T-Mobile e 11 15, ) Lhe credjL at Plaintiff account aaA< was Defendants CRAS the report to review Summ. J. from wi-h CRAS, Defendants from the original efforts for informatlon the the to DeIendanLS obLained PIainLiff,s debt collection -lisrr and Ex E.) (Ross Aff. course of their .ru1y and Auqust from two CRAs, Equifax had investigation. that Ex E. ) In notice the T-Mobife account. After afso caIIs 34.) tlmes: On a monrhly basis (Id.) App. of Exs. at several December 21, 2A7I December 2B, 2AII April 7, 2AI2 Aprll B, 2012 April 30, 2012 / T.] (P].'s a lawsuit. 16.) credltor. dur.i ng r,he plaintiff, s Defendants regarding not same hers, her but provlded Pfaintiff no information (Defs.' Ex. of Ms. Ms. Angelique Ross or H. ) B. Angelique Plaintiff'E Objection to Ross as Records Custodian Defendants ("Ross") D rF€' 5 i-. - the custodian as submit of A; cF.--^..t untnustworthy Resp. lo Defs.' srrike the 1n personal llSl 4. 5.) the the reguLar course The record that of the business records C. P]"aintiff' business support Rnss :q (Pf.'s and to records that she are has (Ross Aff. therein. Plalntiff's the and (fd. ) enLirery. assertion to serve as records custodian attached or that Ross Affidavit objection are and strike. s Errata On September 29, Supplement PLalntiff's S -rr:rrz rha- recor ds, the attached The Cour:t OVERRULES laintiff's P DENIES her motion to s regardlng unauthent i cated. contained does not unqualified Court lnclude .L)ia.lvvlr!LJ cor- espondi ng in her affidavit Ross is fn- are I records summaryjudgmenr in irs that V^-'^n plainr_if knowledge of the facts inadmissible. of S u n l ' n .. 1 . 9 1 6 9 . ) S h e a s k s t h e C o u r t t o affidavic, Defendants' morion lor kept Affidavit Defendantsr records Mot. for Ross testifies affidavit aCCOUnLS. and her the Sbeet 20L4, Motion ,-Trr,-1.-f.na-j" her errata Pfaintiff in i. flfed Opposltion r^'hi nh che J',u a to "Motion Defendants, ro.-eJgoqre v9-r sheet in the record. to r hAf f ho (Doc. no. 103.) rara*: l l,, f ^^n^ha.r h:o 1-Fi r1-.. -rr\.- I.o review t , v l i v r l g ! y v g j J L deposition of resrimony an errata sheet. and ro file Resp. to Defs.' to the S u m m .J . . and contains resolution of is (doc, no. 103) and alfows the proceeding (Defs., Ex. A,) in Lhe forn that cfaims. ps.o___q_€, the Reply to Pl.,s sheet ts The errata lnformation Plaintiff's Pfalntiff het or 30(e) . On March II , 2AI4, deposition. Mot. for one page 1n length any corrections Fed. R. Evid. Defendants took Plaintiff's his is inmateriaL Howevel, GRAIITS the Court because motlon her e.rrata sheet to be incfuded in record. rr. A. Sumraary Judgment Summary judgment genuine entitled dispute to Standald is as to ANAtysrs appropriate any materiaf judgment as a matter 56(a). Facts are "materia-I" of the suit Liberty vjew Lhe Iacrs fact of ',there and the Law." Fed. -if they coufd affect under the governing Lobbv, Inc., onl-y 1f substantive rs no movant is R. Civ. p. the outcome ]aw. Anderson v. 4l'l U.S. 242, 248 (L986). The Court must _n rhe Iighc mosL Iavorab_te Lo Lhe non-movjng , 415 U.S. 5 14 , irfaF6r-6c Prop., 587 (1986), ifcr favor." must and u.s. 94I E.2d 1428, 143'1 (1lth Cir. draw v. Forrr "aff Dar.Fls iustifiable o= Rerl 1991) (en banc) (internal cunctuation and citations party Ihe novjng by reference Court, Celotex motion. ca-ry How to at croof of t s mo\/:nl- v. r-L6 case Adickes v. v. by or an hrr shor^ri na lh^l 2 E.3d 1112, lharo jn ourden element iq burden of of ne, arr'rron-o non- the r.\ one nr.\\ra consider 41'7 U.S. 317 (1986)). f 17 curi an) it af in oppos_Lion, are no genuine issues entitled _ir mlst burden initiaf of marerial to judgment as a matter can of faw. fact Jones aal,.m1_',.e A meet cannot is response Before the Court whether the movant has met its showing Lhac there and that l99f) lexplaining 398 U.S. L44 (1970) and Cefotex S.H. Kress & Co., che non-movant's Tere the concl usory burden at - and only if at srarement trial is LhaL Lhe insufflcient. non-movanL Clark, 929 608. If the Lhe burden ot inicial 929 F.2d 6A4, 606-08 (11" Cir. evaluate F.2d essentiaf 1:he (1986). 317. 323 of Atlanta, _t - negating Catrett, ai City y-!?^*t- Corp. v. r' 411 U.S. for basls 1993) . When the non-movant has the Car. Inc., & Cfark, of the showing the necessary to the non-movant' s case. See Cfark v. Coats a fact first on fi1e, Catrett, Fitzpatrick ways - two to materials burden oI Ll-is burden depends on who bears -yj:- :i ^-^rr has rhe iniLiaf Corp. trial. 1115 (11' omitted) . non-movant - the movant carrles may avoid summary its initial judgment burden. only by that "demonstrat Iing] precfudes that there is indeed a materiaf judgmenr. " sun tary its response to initial the If burden. evidence sufficient 2 F.3d at a materiaf fact, record the sufficient h.q^.i /-\n Ihe Fhe th6 n.rq ar rnmnl:inl- Cir. affrdavits Procedure fhe -il-)l i^"-\ rh^ ^f r ha inn i,ir\/ r-nnnl the 56 and Locaf q,rr:rrr -^nqa.t r given has - 6A? ^f '111 L on inarl /-.inl: tr rhe in 1n??-?,/ ?^ by 1n)2 must /T1 respond Federal Rufe with of Civif 56.1, :nr'l rhc af ridaV_LLS Or other on.-ae ^r o ,Iad>ti^ha Lhe non-mov'ng _.lrirnpnj- trial reLying qrr!9 erv!J provided Rule at T-.1 by by evidence l-Y-.!- buroen the ignored" motlon ai non-movant as otherwise Cferk ics or additional verdict r'iaf p^<< Marri< rr :_r-:z_-!_l____:_::_--.y--.:-----ll.::: Rather, .o'r-e .inh :nrl r^r or arri,.lFnl- rencat Sao 1981). motion at show that either with a directed cannoL carry hrr verdict was "overlooked forward "come ^llecred non-movant el.li non-movant must wlthstand to a directed 'w ,f i r r1_. . . L the movant shows an absence of evidence on the or r a- < n -nun_A e Jt r soughr to be negaLed." FiLzpar-ricr. concains evioence rhar movant irs evidence affirmatively h^h-m^'/:^i to wlthstand 1116. If nl rho or the rndteri.al fact rrial the non-movant must tailor the movant presents f:nr non-movant by which rhe movanl carried nethod - I _--vi rrq\jqLrr'g ldhen the Id. bears the burden of proof at triaL, issue oi fact doF:rrlr s mma r ui rrL u L r o party r rI r I irrdnmen.r ir ornnqi-:rn vI/vvJrL!vrr, rrr aA of rrr'l o< ruvY,.'!-' maI:eri.r-e /n^- noLice \ 'l ^^.^l^-^ Lhe af t-F6 n^- a)) A)q rur i.^r^nts L!!!rrg is r-pe t1lI ai- lOQq\ v. Wainwriqnt onnocitinn h: u r r _ _e r 'li2 , sat j sf ied. ^,,vr -*\ , /\ ^ ^ !r!+____e.s-_:_e.!r in lor Cri tfith of r :A F i e wn ran rnu l E.2d The cime l-ho mnrinn consideration. B. Discussion (a) cElMeijer Plaintiff informatlon a.lleqes to Account that CRAS regarding the GElMeijer F.D.C.P.A. GE/Meijer claim is account. time-barred An action insofar on which the violation case/ the cE/Meijer s l:<j- occurs. as it r^n^-f ed inFarmrr 2013. Therefore, of the ir n n L , srY o , .s . r .^9i o,_ r:y vr r^ coffection claim ins.ists Defendants faifed that S 16929(aJ, that action on based on the time-barred. Account: fetter (]reafed j-hi c L,__Lr connnenced his t any F.D.C.p.A. statutorily-required 15 U.S.C. to the in December 2009. (b) T-Mobile Pfaintiff relates one year from the date account was paid in full G E , / M eji e r a c c o u n t i s with in L5 U.S.C. S 1692k(d) . In this t h e C R A So n M a r c h 1 6 , 2 A C ) 9 . P l a i n t l f f 4, account to enforce anv liab.ilitv by the F.D.C.P.A. may be brought within Aprll false o f t h e E. D . C . P . A . D e f e n d a n t s a r o u e f h a l . p l a i n f i f f , s vio.Lation narAn.l:n- provided Defenclants Vafidatron validation Notice to provide notice Defendants respond that Defendants sent to plaintiff in her vio.Lation the initiaf regarding the T-MobiLe account on December 2I, the elements outlined The- :< i.\n n-n', f-ve rF.y r i rpq days after to Pfaintiff S300.80 the current of COlleCtOr of all initlaf ShaIl the corrdnunicarion, containing the baLance was The statute ldentity. Midfand obligation S crediLor Funding, is also 15 U.S.C. char. rhe original owner is of Defendants' her current creditor's explalned SenO comlnunication or 1 5 U . S . C . S T 6 9 2 9( a ) ( 1 ) . current servicer Mrrrdanont LLC, and Midland Credit Tn- L6929(a) Sectlon col lec Lo-r Lo init.i al the in the the initiaf Deferdants T-MoblLe, rrnnar] dol^- informed her that disclosure 16929(a ) (2). the : and her. amount due was 5210.1?. requires is fhit notice, the amount of the debt. letter contained in S 16929. a consumer a written ,{jLhin 20LI, include communication --r - r es Letter iTn.<Fc rhree tO unfess Lhe rar-ei of :n nl-'- dlfferent rhe ^at i.n i '^l:ro : r - li < n r r r o r l lefendanls' s cons-mer. nnl- i r-e 16929{a) (3) . fetter in deoL their proper ,-lohr E i r<r that wir-hin .li cnrrl- a< thirty the oays r,: l id i l U !Ly or any portion debt. thereof, the debt assumed to be valid by the debt coflector. 15 U.S.C. a rne avnlrinina rr:l on statements a -.)"rSLtmer : to must state nr also informed With regard Plaintiff Lo this after n{ u! will r r hua L r be requiremenc, that (30) days MCM within thirty l u . ln l e s s y o u n o t i f y dfcer rece:ving chis notice that you dispuL,e rhe 10 of the dect, or any portion vafldlt'y will assume this debt to be va1ld. (Defs.' Ex. F.) Under. the statute, an initiaf debt coffect.ion rz:liA:tinn nrncor'lrrrac the fetter <hr'l l second statement must include owalrin MCM thereof, regardinq that the rh:t if the debt collector 1n the consumer notifies period rhar rhe debr, w-r-Ling wiLh-n rhe thirty-day thereof, 1s disputed, the debt or any portion w111 obtaln veriflcation collector of the debt or judgment against the consumer and a a copy of a such verification copy of or judgment wiff be mailed to the consumer bv the debt collector. S 15929(a) (4). 15 U.S.C. letter Defendants' li f days ir\z rrnrr n^ri after €r' n-r-r.'r lif + h1rc- r cnnrr (Defs.' nf of qttr-h a debL circumstances i-i^-1 upor : o ^"-Ai t*e like ^" this statement -i'. days after or mandate/ rrori f ia>tinr nr co here where the iS v.v copy Mr-M r?nl u,_lL j udgmenL a of uvi 4 r r l l r or ObLain m t.qr!'!l r, ^ yuu "^,, 4 irrr'{^-^^' and finaL colleclor t-hirrv LhaL Lhe debL, a.i a ^n.l Juqg,.re'.L/ statement F.D.C.P.A. the parricufarfy i nclude, debt collector is not in the lhat -he wrirren debc receivinq wi.l I Defendants dutifully Thev expfained ra.yr.aql - r e q u e s L w i r -l -i n co]IeCLor .n to r ^ 'r r 'ierLiLnYot l Lhis 11 notice, n of the current ancluded Plaintiff r ^ r il - h the nrnr,,.le the name and address if different from the S 1692q(a) (5). \/^r -li qr''f debt consumer' s as wefl. this with ,y. \, i| l - h i n notice I c tne the consumer with or:iginal- credltor, creditor. U.S.C. rrririnn | ||Y' irrrlnmart\ +Fi-r,,_.r:', l5 in Ex. F. ) The third requi-res ^" MaM rl^aral1ai sr compliance stated receiving verjfjcation \r In that t h + Ji r f Lrr MCM will Lj rr 1?nl provide this you with creditor:. (Defs.' i^ ldrrvuags ra.a-.-r:nr r^ . lha cr:t idcd " r'""- 1^€--.1 law on Plaintiff's .har p.rovide to disclosures Inc., : ccri no with T-Mobile actlvitles mailed notifies period porrion n r^v . ^ l, u a a _- i ^ - - v r r . , sJi validarion notice. | | 6/ I to the extent requ.ired it (l : v ti u I l :Llq-J 6 - l v oo Def endanCS is ^f based 1 rLo 2 -3 t . t \ / lvt \ J, L 'J. ' \J notice or valj,dation proceduref f r.errrirrl cnf the 1-)r coffectlon of Account: account during Defendants after that described thereof, collector .{or,-n.ri rra OraI v. dispuLed, ^rr^t Written Pfaintiff tefephone ih disputed conversation their debt the debt. within If the plaintiff a consumer thirty-day the debt, the debt collector with coflectlon On Jufy 26, 2AI2, writing I2 i-6< a Dispute orally in 15 U.S.C. S I692q (a) that is LhaL Lhe a debt."). disputing in Lhe a-legaLion ugv!yLrvlv!qULfLcJ continued phone cal1. Defendants a letter a debt a language .regarding Lhe cannot form the bas js of On or about December 28, 20IL, Defendants. i- e J identical -i r.lamanr !rI J r9-L ra claim srandi:rg alone, (c) T-Mobile the rnoro has incfuded appropriare invalid, connection is nearly See Bleach v, Revenue Maximumization F. D.C, P.A. debt validation I awstr i | original 233 F. Supp. 2d 496, 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) ("Where a debr col lector deoL is the A rr-ner L / t r 'r c r r L r d r r L l ) the to Plaintiff. fh,,c .rl od cnti F.D.C.P.A. cr-L-LcL.ldL_rurr failing rra pl^infiff +h^?^f^}e Grp., add.ress of Ex. F,) The language in the leccer F6 -F:r name and the shall or any cease --o- Lecr'or the € debt rhe debr, of co.L.Lector obtains 169?rrth\ Hare port-on or any disputed verificatlon trlainriff rhereof. of the or:11r, debt, . l! v F qe! e vr l r F ' - l i n u 15 U,S.C. rho T-Mahi a c c o u n t o n D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 L 1, b u t s h e d i d n o t d i s p u t e in writing djspule to B2I did their F. Srpp. ..rnqrrmer Lrigger not cease 2d 859, consumer loses and W ic h e r s v. is .lFl'rl- for See Osborn v. (S.D. 869-10 nr;l I r, rrr under no obligatron obtaln verification EveLand, 988 F. of S rpp. inadverrently the obllgation AS to verify requi red the oy extent 1692q(b) . ") . S coLlection i-t is actavitaes wriLLen disp.re of LLC, the L/ri I ih^ the 2d debt."); 942, for 941 see (tr.D. Va. a set torLh in agency would be under no D eI e n d a - r r s Plaintiff's che T-Mobife accounL, 13 also Lhe consumer will debrors on Plainr,iff's to the a consumer contests based on Defendants' prior i ha S 15929(b) ; the debt and cease al.L coffection Lo suru"rary judgment enLiLled to the debt collection Delendanrs Ekpsz, in by wricing, in Lhe proLecLions lose F.D.C.P,A.; than of to cease afL cofLection 1997) ("Pursuant to S 1,6929, however, if debu by Lelephone rather I h:n afforded the debt 2011) (* [I]f Tex. ha, lo oral- notlce obligaL-on efforts. protecti-ons the debt colfector efforts rha Plaintiff's a statutory collectlon . rl vi y q e n r r t cgq v e e ! 2AI2. Jul-y 26, until untl a-re efforts Lhere f ore f.D.C.p.A. failure to submission c_ajm cease of a (d) T-Mobile Plaintiff inr-l dc,l alleges /-,ellin.1 account and that calls of issue debt activltles tolonhnno Plaintifl Efforts coffection €i\i6 t-imae activities ntzar: verbal iy disputeo nEri^^rvv ya, q rhe T-Mobile such conduct is harassment under 15 U,S,C. S of violated the hnmo -h:j- *cqnr-nrl naran.iF'1-c triable Co]fection Defendants' that h,-r of four nonths after 16q?,4/5\ Account: fact as to pt:i.^fiff whether f ai.Is Defendants' S 1692d(5) because Pfaintiff' did not require Defendants a to presents and because Plaintiff to raise a collection rzarl-':I cease nicnrrf a cof lection no other evidence of harassment. A debt raturaf colfector may not engage consequence of which is any person U.S.C. connectlon 1692d(5) . S tefephone to . ^^*\?a-erf in -n ring *anoa-,-.i wlth to harass, the Prohibited or \ rl ) / ? any r ^ ^ ^ h rt l. l r r u un ,- l,y , , - 1 , , Lvl u o \,vrrJuirsr frequency T-nl l cr-r A debt of i nn 2011)(holding 'z rLra) he debt qar\/ that collector's irfcrred r ev , collection A1 l. intent trarl question A^^v of material I4 oppress of person - . ri t - h ro debt. 15 causang a a in te lephone irr-ahr- annoy, n/-r lha l - ^e fact 233 rt a h -hL^-1 , t , e 15 U.S.C abuse, n: Meadows v. 230, the or abuse numbe.r hr' , r c w , e m i n i ! calls. conduct includes abuse, or harass any person at the called S 1692d(5) . any collection conduct engaging ^y !! 1n j irr6 or ^n/i Frank]in (1r" existed clr whether debt 300 pbone calls coffector's consumer amounted to to n a r a s s m e n r) . insists Plaintlff the course princ'pal af Iy several Defendants' months t he T-MObile acrivir ies presents no r-rrron inr c rl-' based on other ard n,.-a .l-l^f -- .01? irrr'lrrrerr under -ajll56- 'or e- i_a L f' ' r \ / - f w o . Y _ erri,'ra*-a Group. - n' d | | rr f n^l- arl- 1IA fnc. , Ro-.\\ra-i qa-\/c MA,, -i- .nnra.:.i.-r- collccLor favor in 1 1 - ?4\/ . P6-^\7a " o- \, e aL of i,a I t rr in nno h:r,ae<i Supp. a- and annro>rim:re r urir-o F. work sr..r,rA r'v s !rv-, .L r m a r lr : L n r LPtn r , r d:rr -irnFs inenCiCal T-- "nln -fj-pn 15 t-hraa 1305 .'allinrr :r\, ^l-h6l (M.D. Fla. rhe debL collecLo-r ca',on timac nar zl:., : Wr iia ,, F.i- messaoesl hrT. q?nolLn a\rarrr .rrr-Lar v r-RF __-tt-!_!-=+____J--:-____:j!Llf I . 1301, 2d e r Y 'rr-t Eio hrr1. ,.'i rh^r11- nnnr.lrrrr nn VO jCe ll catled ova- l^one lrr I .)/ _.. - rhe A^6n^\7 (Y r r a. r t i " q a u| L \ aonqr ra-. on more vyy' .? ^-tnted -9 Plaincitf On facts h a r a S s n ^' r lr -L . u r summary judgmenr although n.r- l a,.l f i f r\r-ea\?Fn lo.-...n^ F - -i times _'_tf r_/l-uo D I (r 2010) tgrarcing :*rl Of r^,-r-ih^ debr e.rnr: E-v-v-.t--v. SS 1692d & L692d(5) where defendant Pc dlru n cle f an,'lant 15 U.S.C. n-ai"^fiFf L,r<ly- harassment. I ,v '2 Pf ainci'f dispure. Soo l,,Jl, , L t v r r( , r i c verbal of irdiCatiVe r"-.1-raht cd harassrnent .'r q^r.<<o-l i A< over ob_Ligation to cease collecrlon Plaintiff's evidence to occL-r-red af Ler account. DefendanLs ,,{ere under no legal phone calls five amounted ber-ause Lhese calls -/ .li cn r. o-r verh:' that *? tM n Fl: n6^ 1a ' ( .1 | \ ' - rr : r ' i n c r + r r : r v rirrrlnn nina m.\nlhe irrr^lomort r:l l orl -rr'< -l^a' d.e-" 268L953, *1 ( M .D . r'r,-lrrre-l f ^. alehl v. l?? ^'r-I\ Ffa. July calLed i the ,Trrn,= )Q debcor Abserr the inn issue of inslsts rc nahr -^l because Plaintiff account was ----,-l- ^r!, \r.l isnrt:-rl" l^^r had inval-d. -r\- id.F:^?.r i n rhci r che ^-r or v. (E.D. Mich. .rha riahl- monLh period) . harassing carls F-l t d r : , c-,^ Defendants argue f I ao,^ri -rr I6 PJgfiese ro conduct, Plainti'f lha to CRAS to report the 15 U.S.C. S 1592e, which r - l - :^ ^ r r r g - i'.\ Kan. cO_-Leclor *9-10 False Reporting Delendanrs rar-\.rrl- q (D. under S 1692d(5). informed hv summary : lrharrnh Delendanrs' r.-6 Wl collector debc Defendants' decision that t-imac 2471 7229 an eight T-Mobife account to the CRAsviolated nrnhil^,i l:,lvrri!r debL tlvo months); abus-ve. fact Inc. , 1223, :''r-^,.,h (e) T-Mobife Account: Plaintiff 2d during of farrr rwo weeks); Carman v. 2010 WL 2632562, annoying, lina ",here srrmm,arrz irrdnmonr and frequency no tr:iabfe rnlr during 350 times of evjdence create Tnc., l.rr^nt called pattern 149 cimes Serv., 2n1O) co..ecLor -,,na+an COlfectOr 2011) (gr:anting II , Supp. -:l debt Servs, , times ouring F. ,-,, Recovery Prof. 182 Lhe ^Fi6h al'hn .--r1'an-^- lnc., /-,-6r timac CCB Credic cal-Led the debcor fourteen CBtr croup, altl^or-.h j-Lo aRAe ^ -^c^^l r-E l^J r c > s r l L d L that thaL the Lhey T_Mobile -, i^ l t u ^ l-S , T-Mobile mec debt thei r AS Debr col lecrors ^m.]rrni to .rr qtA1- rrq I a/ial person any be shoufd credlt L692e(2) &(B) ; *1 n.\ac n/1l- be '. v. ,rnrr Carev v. ranrrrr'nn l_r lisnr-e-l i s Campbell , debt 1, informat.ion false, including r'liqnrrf i pls€'cl which the this case, a is viofaL_on rn to r ho of *13 r :aonz^i ac a disputed q l - a l - r - t -6 ) . Ff a. should S !'.D.C.P.A. nro,-ii connunicarions to LLC, 2014 vil. that (M.D. known or faifure Defendants account as disputed cease reporting consumer disputes The d,-h.r which 15 U.S.C. fai.Lure to communicate that a-/1cf : 18, Jan. lo any person be known to comrnunicate that be a disputed a that Thomas Aqencv, 2011) (debt reporting debt consumer expficitly flagged does not to the require the that 760 F. Supp. debt colfectors CRAS simpty report did told not of violate debt T1 2d I5I , disputed because 159-60 debt S 1692e(B) co.Llector T- debt the debt was ever owed. See poulin collectorrs agencies speci fically when Defendants reported r - o t h e C F . A S .T h e F . D . C . P . A . to od LEv o 'tfaifure the Serv.. in:l disputed. ") . In I{obile known or 2014)(holding 2006) ("Secti o\ I692e (B) prohibils debt is Credrt vrJt_u nnmmrrn disputecl. " is 2AA6 !'iL 146208, credit is includinq Pinnacle Lhe characLer, I horr which false, {M.D. Fl-a. Jan. nr/1hr reFresenL '-lohr a disputed but a debt colfector's .lFhr nf falsely information known to communicate that 54II5, may not that to (D. a v, Me. credit even though there was no 'lan:l ha<i< with debt €nr rloht creditor, rol rrhara and I ar-f nr h.rrJ nranor 'lt-a- \7 Annr.\h-i lrr rrar i f iad r:rl,a6l debC d i s p u r e d ) . D e fe - i d a n r s a r e e n c i c L e d c o s u [ r ] r a r y j u d g r e r u matter of 1692e by law on Plaintiff's repol:ting 2 I . L. R.A. /:\ the Dazmi the n trnr\qa i1-a Section r-. lI F.j- .\* revlew Sys., an account, A In her consumer a viofaLion aal-a^r atLA-^r^^ of plaintiff, obtained s i^r ^F a permissible which is !r! a v ' ^ Yn rf permits F.C.R.A. L ir ir rrcoc S 1681b(3) (A); ( S. D . consumer, s credlt ln connection rLh ra r s a l r o n la r qPv L debt t see Flot:es v. L319A46, *3 wL a caser credit Defendants' expressly Credi t wlth FLa. ra Lv I.C, Apr. I , to be review or report the of a consumer's account). this Pfalntlff's Lheir Lhe .ro.lil person collection they accounts, of af ]ows l l^l v fqeu debts. (A) 15 U,S.C. 2AI4 2014)(F.C.R.A. ^v^-y! u act 16.r Inc., CRAS, tr C.R.A. 158lb(3) rn purpose, that with and T-Mobile r-rda- to obtalned argue --Fnection ih GElMeijer s vlolated /1l^!^t-i-^ vvLotlllll\.] a permissibLe Defendants - F^- Defendants that cred-LL -reporL w:Lhour -r6.-ii account Purpose <<il-. la contends F.C.R.A. Defendants T-MobiLe disputed that as a LIALMS Pfalntiff the claim aS states that Defendants report debt to contend review collection any information 18 that they Plaintiff, letter obtained s to obtained disputed plaintiff by Defendants will debt DetenoanLs that report, credit ra- ^-^-lir based but l. r^r <rrmm^ extent false or that her obtained COlleCtiOn. s F,C.R.A. Defendants nr*l.,. qa than cfaims her obtained n,='endanI's and inaccurate, noL Inaccurate are are credit entit.led Reporting a--eoes that Defendants wilIfrrllv information / ah^r] Pfaintiff, reqLresL Defendants .)j-heI nq.! r v Jn . ] q F y y r ! that irr-e-.ri..rhlc P-airt'ff does anrz that Lo insrsts irld-mant- (b) reported fn. P-laintiff putpose no evidence allegations .tn rv permissibLe no c purposes. collection offers the on her -en.rr nad .^-^.F 'lher,=fora l-^ for be used to CRAs which Defendants knew was fa.Lse Defendants correctly prov-de an.l l,nowino-r, private a observe that the F.C.R.A. i n^ rjght of Ior acrion inaccurare The F.C.R.A. governs clai-ms by consumers, like against an ol furnishers allegation information that regarding infornacion, the like furnishers SS 1581a(c) ]-ne F.C.R.A. infor:mation to & (f) , requires CRAS. creen, informatlon submitted based on incorrect 2OO8); see generaffv 1681s-2 (a) . Section furnishers regarding her L:1 rhis 1681s-2(a) suhmit to 288 F. Appx. contends thar- Delendants violaced false Defendanrs, t h e c o - t s u m e - rL o C R A S . G r e e n v . R B S N a L f l Bank, 288 E. Appx. 647, 642 (11t' Cir. U.S.C. plaintiff, at 642. provision accounts. 15 of accurate pfaintiff oy Lenderirg "The F. C. R.A. , .-'.,Fvar such nf -r-l d^6q nro\/i.la a violatlon contended duty debt that provide to F.C.R.A. clalm viofation of favor is to of debt proper the for it duty under is F.C.R.A. requirement reasonabfe acco -nL requires credit not furnisher need not is records, ") . The plalntiff 9 r. i^- after recelvlng .rq ." Debt from nf from a dispute. irionl the with face ii', of verrfy the Howard v. (N.D. ca. that 2A ^l the hdr the reported in its showing that Bank oI 2AI4) . ^r records, information v. (M.D. ca. rhaf, its has the burden of W ar e a CRA to conduct a reasonable of fr:rrd rhe generally LLC, 2AIA WL 2600753, *3 reasonable. S"rpp. 3d 1329, I339 notice 1681s-2 (b) Secrion do more than consistent alleged perform a of information notice identafiable an of a Disputed furnishers allcclerinns lnformation i^'/6eii^:r furnishers di spured. Servs., on Defendanrs willfu.L.Ly viofated information Credit lt'Aheoni issues is Plaintiff's S 1681s-2 (a) . upon receiving invesLigaLion 2010) that investigation LhaL an Pinnacfe that Therefore, on based (c) Reasonable fnvestigarion P-Laintif f affeges consumer S 1681s-2 (a) CRAS). Defendants extent Defendants' where the to granL court collector information redless tO drstrict had vioLated collector accurate judgment summary in aCtiOn Of (affirmlng Id. " crrmm--,, irr^^m6-1 r'.rh- a nr:v.]-e Arnerica own t.he CorD., 1n Jufy and August 2a!2, Lwo CRAS, Equifax Defendants received and Experjan, the T-Mobile account was hers. informat-on Lhey were information creditors. Plaintiff received for from had rhe to internal received records Defendants ro origtnal the from they but requested rely the that The Court did not respond. fn the absence of cooperation, the Court that to examination limit of the consumer failed that credit I.C,R.A. the qor-ttr'-r/ card issuer's where :he f L:' of to raise had che rr,-rFar >*"t hnmo III for surxnary Lhe reasons juclqmenc they notes that records reviewed same f 's p-laintif reasonabfe lnvestigatlon See id. for to an (finding- a genuine issue of material who submitLed acco -nL was systems. investigation issuer -t-,a ^^".'rr it their own electronic its that scope of 1t was from pfaintiff. Plaintiff lefendants Defendants lnternal and assistance finds the original on che information creditors. information that and contends that Defendants dld more than merely refy on their - thar CRAS was Lhe same takes issue with the fact examined only their unreasonable dispured Pfaintjfr from Defendants confirmed reporcing they that rhat notice fact was unreasonabfe under its the name, lnternal and -ho d i s rn r t e L ! Pe u_ date of records birth, to owner social rdrlroe<r . CONCIJUSTON set (doc. f o.rch above, no. e5) 2I is Defendants' hereby motion GRjAIITED for and Plalntiff's to "Motlon Oppos.ition to Defendants' no. 103) is ,It DGMENTin motions, Defendants Plaintiff, Motion for Summary Judgment" GRANTED. The C.Ierk is favor of Defendants. and CLOSE the case. and aqainst directed ter:minate s to all Motion enter Costs Augusta, are Georgia, taxed FINA! deadlines in favor this 2015. UNITED ST 22 in (doc. Pfaintiff. ORDER ENTERED at January, Supp]ement ES DISTRICT JU and of

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.