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.
It might be too early to tell if this is just a few isolated cases or if it is the start of a new trend, but there have been three separate lawsuits, filed in three separate jurisdictions, against three separate collection operations, involving three separate modes of communication, in which each collector is being accused of communicating with a third party about a debt. Each of the three cases were filed within two days of one another.
Each of the plaintiffs are represented by different attorneys, but in reading the complaints, especially the counts and claims, there does appear to be some similarities.
The background: In one case, filed in the District Court for the District of Oregon, the defendant allegedly sent nine text messages attempting to collect on an unpaid debt to the plaintiff’s father. The father had no connection to the debt, according to the complaint.
- In another case, filed in the District Court for the District of West Virginia, the plaintiff owed three different debts to three different creditors, each of which were acquired by the defendant. The defendant then sent three letters to an address, which happened to be where his ex-wife lived, and where the plaintiff had never resided. Now, the complaint does say that the ex-wife “was a party to this obligation” for each of the debts, but then later alleges that the ex-wife had no connection to any of the debts.
- The third case, filed in the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleges that the defendant sent an email attempting to collect on a debt to the plaintiff’s son, who had no connection to the debt.
The claims: Each of the three cases make the same claims against the defendants: that they violated Sections 1692c(c), 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA.
Read complaint #1. Read complaint #2. Read complaint #3
