Attorney representation can be a complicated situation for collection operations and even “taking the high road” can lead to a lawsuit, but a District Court judge in Washington has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because its representative refused to speak with the plaintiff in a not cut-and-dried situation.
The Background: The defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff in November of 2021. The plaintiff hired an attorney to represent her. The defendant took no action on the suit after filing it, and it was dismissed in December of 2022. In March 2023, the defendant filed a new collection lawsuit for the same debt. The plaintiff became aware of the suit and contacted the defendant directly.
- After confirming the plaintiff’s identity, the representative refused to speak with the plaintiff, stating that the company’s records indicated the plaintiff was represented by an attorney and direct communication with the plaintiff was not allowed.
- The plaintiff told the representative she was not being represented by the attorney in the new lawsuit and the representative replied that either the attorney had to send a letter indicating he was no longer representing the plaintiff or the plaintiff had to send a non-representation letter to the defendant.
- The plaintiff and her former attorney then called the defendant together and were transferred to the defendant’s attorney who had filed the second lawsuit. By that point, the plaintiff had requested the attorney represent her in the second suit and the attorney filed a formal notice of appearance. All of this took place in the course of about three hours on the same day.
- The plaintiff then filed suit, alleging the defendant’s refusal to speak with her about the second suit was a violation of the FDCPA and the Washington Collection Agency Act.
The Ruling: Making short work of his ruling, Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed with the defendant that its representative was not at fault for continuing to believe the plaintiff was represented by an attorney, because this was the same debt.
- “This, as the various CPA and WCAA provisions set out, protected Defendant from making prohibited ex parte communications, protected Plaintiff’s interests, and caused nothing more than a three-hour clarification of communications,” Judge Martinez wrote.
