A District Court judge in South Carolina has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding, accusing them of sending collection letters that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because there is already a lawsuit against one of the defendants making the exact same accusations.
A copy of the ruling in Blackwell v. Midland Credit Management and Midland Funding can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, alleging that he received a letter attempting to collect on an unpaid debt. The letter was an attempt to collect on a time-barred debt and included three payment options, as well as the following disclaimer: “The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt, we may continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid.”
The plaintiff argued that the letter implied the defendant was choosing not to sue the plaintiff instead of stating that the plaintiff could not be sued for the unpaid debt because the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff accused the defendants of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA.
However, another case — Jonathan Alston et al. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. — that makes the almost the same accusations, is still pending in the same court. That case was filed seven months before the Terrence Blackwell filed his suit.
Blackwell argued that the cases were not similar because the debts originated with different creditors, because the first lawsuit does not include Midland Funding, and because the class in the first case has not been certified as a class action. The judge dismissed each of the arguments and granted the motion to dismiss the case.
