A District Court judge in Washington has adopted a Magistrate Court judge’s recommendation to grant a plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim against a collection agency, ruling the defendant had no valid defense to the actions it took against the plaintiff.
A copy of the Magistrate judge’s recommendation in the case of Vargas v. Evergreen Professional Recoveries can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was injured in a motorcycle accident and needed medical care. Five years later, the plaintiff learned she was being sued by the defendant for outstanding debts related to the care she received, after the healthcare provider assigned the account to the defendant for collection. The defendant had sent a letter and attempted to call the plaintiff but neither was returned. The defendant never served the summons on the plaintiff and voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.
Six months later, it filed the lawsuit again. Again, the suit was dismissed, but the defendant continued to report the debt to the credit bureaus.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA as well as state law in Washington.
Ultimately, ruled the Magistrate judge, the defendant was unable to assert a valid defense to its actions, although the judge did deny a motion from the defendant to amend its answer to claim it was entitled to the Bona Fide error defense, ruling the motion was not filed in a timely manner.
The defendant also attempted to argue its conduct was defensible because it reasonably relied on the information that it was supplied by the creditor. But the judge ruled that defense was too close to the Bona Fide error defense that the defendant was already told it could not make. Even so, the attempt to argue reasonable reliance would fail, the judge ruled, because the creditor did not induce the defendant to report the debt after the collection lawsuits had been dismissed nor did the creditor induce the defendant to file the lawsuits in the first place.
