To the benefit of a collection agency, a District Court judge has ruled that a plaintiff alleging that the agency violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act did not offer “even a scintilla” of evidence to substantiate those claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Ortiz v. Enhanced Recovery Company can be accessed by clicking here.
The essential of this case boils down to the claim that the plaintiff returned a cell phone purchased from a creditor and the lack of evidence that such a return ever took place. The account was eventually placed with the defendant, who attempted to collect on the debt. The plaintiff, who was representing himself, disputed the debt, complained to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and filed suit against the defendant.
When notified of the dispute, the defendant stopped collection activities, notified the credit bureaus about the dispute, and sent verification of the debt to the plaintiff. After its investigation, in which it learned that the original creditor requested proof that the cell phone was returned — proof that was never provided — the defendant kept the account in an investigatory status to prevent further collection efforts. After the CFPB complaint was filed, the defendant asked the credit bureaus to delete the debt from the plaintiff’s credit report.
The plaintiff’s complaint was that the defendant attempted to continue collecting on the debt after it was disputed and that the defendant reported inaccurate information to the credit bureaus. But, unable to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims, Judge Deborah Barnes of the District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted the defendant’s request for summary judgment.
“Given the evidence presented by the parties on summary judgment, there does not appear to be even a scintilla of evidence that the defendants violated plaintiff’s rights as alleged,” Judge Barnes wrote.
