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 collection law firm is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for allegedly sending communications to a consumer after being notified that the individual was represented by an attorney. We’re going to mention — but not dwell on the fact — that the way in which the plaintiff’s attorney notified the defendant that the plaintiff was being represented was … by fax.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-03459 or by clicking here.
After receiving the fax, the defendant then sent the plaintiff’s attorneys an itemized billing record. Then, the defendant allegedly sent the plaintiff “numerous” debt collection letters regarding “several” accounts in an attempt to collect upon the alleged debt. Rather than an account number, which was included in the original letter that the defendant sent to the plaintiff, this series of letters included the reference “RE: SEVERAL” and included several different account numbers, but lacked “any reference to the creditor or entity to which the alleged debt was purportedly owed.”
“Defendant’s communications to Plaintiff in connection with the attempted collection of the alleged Debt were unsolicited and not in response to an inquiry from Plaintiff,” according to the complaint. “Defendant’s communication was neither made to advise Plaintiff that further debt collection efforts were being terminated, nor made to notify Plaintiff that Defendant could or would invoke a specified remedy. Instead, Defendant’s communications aimed to collect Plaintiff’s Debt without any permission from Plaintiff and after Defendant received Plaintiff’s express written request that Defendant cease further telephonic communications regarding the Debt and that Defendant only respond to the dispute and only in writing.”
The complaint does not include any of the letters as exhibits, so trying to understand exactly what happened means relying, for now, solely on what is included in the complaint. My question is, if the subsequent letters were regarding “several accounts” and included “several different account numbers” how are they connected to the debt in question?
The suit accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(a)(2), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
