A District Court judge in Nevada has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Telephone Consumer Protection Act case that dealt with a new debt being placed with the defendant for collection after the plaintiff had notified the defendant she was being represented by an attorney with respect to other debts the defendant was already trying to collect from her.
The background: The plaintiff owed three separate medical debts to a hospital, which were separately assigned to the defendant for collection. The first two accounts were placed with the defendant in 2019 and 2020, while the third account was placed in June 2021.
- The plaintiff retained legal representation in April 2021 for the first two accounts, notifying the defendant of her representation via fax. But both sides dispute the timing of when the plaintiff notified the defendant about being represented for the third account.
- The plaintiff alleges that the defendant contacted her on multiple occasions regarding her debts despite knowing she was represented by an attorney. She accused the defendant of violating Section 1692c(A)(2) of the FDCPA, along with Sections 1692d and 1692f. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to contact her without consent.
The ruling: Judge James C. Mahan of the District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the defendant did not have “actual knowledge” of the plaintiff’s legal representation for the third debt account until August 2021. The plaintiff sent notices to the defendant in April and June of 2021 notifying it of her representation, but the June 2021 notice only mentions the second account and makes no mention of the third account. Thus, as long as the defendant was attempting to collect on the third account, any communication it made to the plaintiff was not in violation of the FDCPA, the judge ruled.
- Regarding the TCPA claim, the court determined that the plaintiff had provided prior express consent to be contacted by the defendant when she supplied her cellphone number during her medical care. The court found that the provision of her phone number on the hospital’s admission form constituted consent under the Federal Communication Commission’s interpretation of the TCPA. Since the defendant obtained the phone number from the hospital and used it to communicate about the debt, there was no violation of the TCPA, Judge Mahan ruled.
