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 operation is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit for allegedly contacting the plaintiff’s brother twice, with the second communication coming after the plaintiff informed the defendant that it should not call the brother.
The Background: Last April, the plaintiff’s brother received a phone call from the defendant, who left a voicemail. The complaint doesn’t mention what the voicemail said. The brother informed the plaintiff of the call. The plaintiff called the defendant the next day and informed the defendant that it should not be calling his brother and should be calling him instead. The plaintiff also disputed the debt — which was owed to a gym — saying his membership was frozen when the alleged debt was created.
- The gym sent the plaintiff an email in September 2022 informing him that a payment had been missed and that he could call or make a payment through the member portal to keep his membership active. He replied back that same say, saying “Looks like the system tried to charge my card but wasn’t successful. My account should be in a 60 day freeze as we agreed over the phone. I live in Florida now and won’t be able to work out at your gym any longer.”
- Two weeks after the plaintiff called the defendant, the defendant placed another call to the plaintiff’s brother and left another voicemail message. Again, the content of the voicemail message was not included in the complaint.
- The plaintiff claims to have suffered emotional harms such as increased heartrate, difficulty with sleep, anxiety, and stress associated with knowing that third parties may be receiving calls to collect on a debt alleged to be owed by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff disputes.
The Claim: The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and Section 1692f of the FDCPA.
