EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A collector is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action lawsuit for allegedly not honoring the terms of a settlement offer it made to the plaintiff, who is now seeking to include anyone else in California who was allegedly treated in the same way.
A copy of the complaint, originally filed in California state court but subsequently removed to the District Court for the Eastern District of California, is available by using case number 23-cv-00996 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff and her daughter co-signed for a lease on an apartment in the summer of 2022. When the plaintiff vacated the apartment, there was a balance due of $6,238.90. Both the plaintiff and her daughter received letters from the defendant that referenced the same account number. The plaintiff spoke with a representative of the defendant on the phone and said she did not have enough to pay the entire balance. Ten days later, the defendant offered to settle the balance on the account if the plaintiff paid 50% of what was owed. The plaintiff asked for a copy of the proposal in writing and received an email confirming to settle the account by paying 50% of the balance that was owed. The plaintiff paid the amount and received a response from the defendant that acknowledged receipt of the payment and that it released “you, and you alone, from any further liability related to the above mentioned debt..”
The plaintiff demanded that the defendant release both her and her daughter from the debt and the defendant allegedly refused to do so. The credit reports of both the plaintiff and her daughter continue to contain derogatory information related to the debt in question.
The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA as well as sections of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
