A Magistrate judge in Texas has recommended granting motions to dismiss filed by two creditors who were sued, along with a pair of collection agencies, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, among other claims, by an attorney who blamed the losses of separate lawsuits on poor Internet service offered by the defendants.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Davis et al. v. CenturyLink et al. can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff — an attorney — blamed the losses of two lawsuits on poor Internet service, claiming she was unable to timely file evidence in both cases because her service was down. Had the service been working, she claimed, her clients would have avoided summary judgment, prevailed at trial, and won more than $1 million in damages.
The plaintiffs filed suit against a number of entities, including DirecTV, AT&T, and a pair of collection agencies. DirecTV and AT&T were included to be held liable for the actions of their alleged agents, including the Internet service provider, and the collection agencies hired to collect on unpaid debts.
Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled, the plaintiff failed to connect the remaining defendants as agents of the two creditors. For example, the creditors were accused of violating the FDCPA because of the actions of two collection agencies. But the plaintiff did not allege that the creditors were debt collectors or creditors liable under the FDCPA.
Similarly, the plaintiff alleged the creditors violated Section 1681s-2(a) of the FCRA by not providing accurate information to the credit reporting agencies, but, as Judge Edison noted, there is no private right of action under that section of the statute.
