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.
Is responding to a collection lawsuit a dispute that requires a response from the collector? Is a cease communication request that is included in a notice of an intent to defend that lawsuit valid? Is sending two letters with the results of a dispute investigation 10 and 16 days after the dispute was made too soon? These are some of the questions surrounding a class-action lawsuit that has been filed in Maryland federal court alleging a collection operation violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The background: In September 2024, the defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to Defend with the court, which included a statement that he contested all of the claims made by the collector and intended to defend the suit, that he did not recognize the debt that was the subject of the suit, and that he requested that all communications be ceased in any format, except that the collector could communicate via email for communications related to this case only.
- During the course of the next three months, the collector made 16 different attempts to contact the plaintiff outside of the formal court process, according to the complaint. This included nine phone calls — none of which the plaintiff answered, five text messages, and two letters, each summarizing the results of an investigation into the debt’s validity.
- Except, according to the plaintiff, he never disputed the debts, and the collector used the alleged dispute “to justify continued direct contact” with the plaintiff, despite his request that communications be ceased.
- During a hearing, a lawyer representing the defendant said, “I don’t see how you look at the Notice of Intention to Defend as anything other than a dispute,” which triggered a response from his client.
- The two letters informed the plaintiff that the defendant had conducted an investigation of the disputed debt and concluded that it was valid. The letters were not included as part of the collection lawsuit and were mailed to the plaintiff’s home address, despite his request that communications be ceased unless it had to do with the collection lawsuit, at which point email was the only approved communication method. The letters included the exhibits that were part of the original collection lawsuit and did not include any new documentation or explanation of the steps that were taken to investigate the dispute, according to the complaint.
- The first letter was sent 10 days after the plaintiff filed his Notice of Intention to Defend and the second letter was sent six days after that, which, according to the plaintiff suggested “that no meaningful investigation occurred.”
- The plaintiff then offered to settle the matter and the debt for $1,000, but the defendant never responded to the offer.
The claims: The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by continuing to contact the plaintiff after receiving a written notice to cease, as well as Sections 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g. The defendant is also accused of violating the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.
- The plaintiff is seeking to include anyone who was contacted by the defendant after a Notice of Intention to Defend or similar court filing was made and whose notice was treated as a dispute “to justify continued direct contact,” according to the complaint.
