A District Court judge in Texas has partially granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after it was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in how it attempted to collect on a judgment.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Kranz v. Midland Credit Management can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant mailed the plaintiff a subpoena letter that commanded the plaintiff to appear for an oral deposition and warned the plaintiff that if she failed to appear, she could be held in contempt and face fines and/or confinement. The letter was addressed to “Any Sheriff or constable of the State of Texas or other person authorized to serve and execute subpoenas …” but such an individual never served the document to the plaintiff.
The defendant sent a follow-up letter to the plaintiff, who claimed they falsely implied the subpoena letter had the power of a proper subpoena and included a financial disclosure form, which the plaintiff argues is not a permissible form of discovery in Texas.
The plaintiff raised 13 possible violations of the FDCPA, as well as alleged violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff alleges that as many as 600 individuals across Texas who received such letters from the defendant.
Ultimately, ruled Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, a least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused by all the legal documents and would be required to comply with the subpoena, including incurring the costs of missing work and traveling to the deposition, only to be told when they show up to fill out the same financial disclosure form.
Judge Rodriguez concluded that the plaintiff had alleged violations of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA, but sided with the defendants on the claim that they violated Section 1692d of the Act.
