In a case defended by the team at Gordon Rees, a District Court judge in Georgia has ordered the plaintiffs in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case to show cause why they should not be ordered to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs after the case was dismissed following an unusual sequence of events.
A copy of the order in the case of Bell et al. v. Portfolio Recovery Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The backstory on this one is a little bit of a winding road, so buckle up. The plaintiffs filed suit in November 2021 alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA. In September 2022, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims because, based on their testimonies during depositions, it became “apparent that they had made various misrepresentations to their counsel” about the details of their case. A week after filing the voluntary motion to dismiss, they filed a notice withdrawing that motion, saying it was filed in error.
The defendant then filed a motion to depose the plaintiff’s attorney, based on testimony from the plaintiffs that he was the “moving force” in withdrawing the motion to dismiss the case. The motion to depose the attorney was granted. The next day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendant sought an extension to respond to the motion until it could depose the plaintiff’s attorney, which the judge granted. Then, the plaintiffs filed another motion to voluntarily dismiss the suit.
During their depositions, the plaintiffs made statements such as they were “going with what the attorney said” and that they were “being led by him” and that the attorney said the plaintiffs “had to” move forward even though they wanted to dismiss the case.
A Magistrate judge recommended the case be dismissed
