A Magistrate Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case that related to how to communicate with a consumer who has ceased communications with a collector, only for the collector to have another separate debt placed with it for the same individual.
The Background: The defendant began sending text messages and emails to the plaintiff in January 2023 seeking to collect on a debt that was owed to Credit One Bank through QVC. In June 2023, the plaintiff sent a communication to the defendant saying that he was refusing to pay the debt. A few days later, the defendant began communicating with the defendant about a separate debt, which was also owed to Credit One Bank.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA by ignoring the cease request that he sent on the initial debt.
The Ruling: The defendant based its summary judgment motion on the argument that it did cease communicating with the plaintiff when it was asked to do so and that it was allowed to send the communications about the second debt because that was not covered by the cease request.
- The “Defendant is correct,” wrote Judge J. Mark Coulson of the District Court for the District of Maryland. Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA, which requires collectors to cease communications with consumers if the collector is notified in writing that the consumer is refusing to pay the debt or that the consumer wishes the collector to cease communications (with a few exceptions) is applied on a “debt-by-debt basis.”
- The defendant submitted metadata to indicate that it sent no further communications to the plaintiff regarding the QVC account after the plaintiff requested to cease communication and additional metadata to show the subsequent communication was related to the second account.
