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.
March 14 was a busy day for one particular plaintiff. She filed four different lawsuits against four different collection operations, all alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. While none of the claims made in any of the lawsuits surprise anyone — they are all common claims seen in complaints across the country every day — it is odd to see four different lawsuits against four different creditors, all filed on the same day.
The background: In one case, the plaintiff allegedly responded to an email from the defendant saying, “I refuse to pay.” Over the course of the next month, the defendant allegedly sent four more emails attempting to collect on the same debt.
- The plaintiff filed the suit, according to the complaint, because it was the only way to stop the defendant from emailing her, according to the complaint.
In another case, the plaintiff checked her credit report on Credit Karma and noticed a tradeline being furnished by the defendant. On or about New Year’s Day, the plaintiff sent the defendant a letter via certified mail (can you send certified mail on a holiday?), indicating she was disputing the debt. The plaintiff checked her credit report in late February and noticed that the debt was not being flagged as disputed.
- The plaintiff attempted to sign up for a credit card and was denied, according to the complaint.
The other two cases have a common thread, but were filed against separate collection operations. In one, the plaintiff fell behind on her car payments and the vehicle was repossessed. She sent a letter to the lender in late February, requesting a bunch of documents, including the original contract, a full payment history, and more. She has yet to receive those documents. This is a violation of Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff subsequently received a text message from the defendant, attempting to collect on a debt. The plaintiff received another message a couple of weeks later. The text messages failed to indicate they were being sent by a collector, according to the complaint.
- It’s not clear how the defendants are connected or related.
In the fourth lawsuit, the plaintiff again noted a tradeline on her credit report. This tradeline was a debt owed to the auto lender, being furnished by a defendant (separate from the defendant mentioned above), where the debt was flagged as disputed.
- The plaintiff sent the defendant a letter indicating she was no longer disputing the debt and asked for her credit report to be updated.
- The plaintiff checked her credit report in late February and the account was still being furnished as disputed.
- Again, she was denied for a credit card.
The claims: Depending on the complaint, the plaintiff is accusing the defendants of violating Sections 1692c(c), 1692d, 1692e(8), and 1692e(11) of the FDCPA, as well as sections of Georgia’s UCC.
- The plaintiff is representing herself in each of the four lawsuits.
Check out the complaints here.
