In a case that was spotlighted by Barron & Newburger, a Magistrate Judge in Ohio has granted partial summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff who sued a debt collector for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it did not identify itself as a collector when leaving voicemail messages.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Pastian v. Internal Credit Systems can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt that was owed to a fitness facility when she canceled her membership before the term expired. The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant and then received a voicemail. The recording of the voicemail said, “Yes, message for Megan. This is Ted Lachman giving you a call regarding a legal matter. My number is 1-877 ….” In a deposition, Lachman said he referred to the situation as a “legal matter” to make sure the plaintiff knew it was “serious.”
The plaintiff returned the voicemail, and what happens next depends on whom you believe. The plaintiff accused the defendant of being unprofessional while the defendant said the plaintiff ranted and raved.
A week later, the plaintiff received another voicemail. This one said, “Message for Megan. This is Hieu Tran calling from Internal Credit Systems. We need to speak to you immediately regarding a personal business matter. My number is 1-877 ….”
In reviewing each of the plaintiffs’ five claims made against the defendant, Judge Sharon Ovington of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton, granted summary judgment on two of the claims, denied summary judgment on two of the claims, and dismissed the remaining claim.
The two claims in which the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement surrounded the content of the voicemails, specifically the defendant’s representatives not identifying themselves as debt collectors, and when it threatened to report the negative items to a credit reporting agency in an email sent to the plaintiff’s attorney.
