A District Court judge in Maryland has denied a number of motions filed by a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, including a motion to remand the case back to state court and a motion for summary judgment, ruling that discovery needs to take place first.
The background: The case centers on a series of six text messages sent over a roughly five-week period in late 2024. According to the complaint, the plaintiff received messages from a debt collector attempting to collect on an unpaid cell phone bill that the plaintiff says she never owed. The messages were allegedly the result of a mix-up between the plaintiff and her sister, who has a similar name — Angel and Angela.
- The texts included at least one instance where the message was addressed to a different first name, and others that contained no name at all. The plaintiff reported the issue to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stating that the messages caused stress and confusion and violated both the FDCPA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
- Both defendants — the debt buyer that was the owner of the debt and the collector working the account — responded to the CFPB complaint, acknowledging the error, removing the plaintiff’s number, and placing it on a do-not-contact list. Despite those steps, the plaintiff pursued litigation, seeking damages for the alleged violations.
The ruling: Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the District Court for the District of Maryland rejected all three of the plaintiff’s motions.
- On the motion to remand, the court held that federal jurisdiction was proper because the claims arose under federal statutes. Even though FDCPA and TCPA claims can be heard in state court, the judge emphasized that federal courts retain original jurisdiction over such claims.
- On the motion to strike, the plaintiff argued that she did not receive proper service of certain filings. The judge disagreed, pointing out that she had consented to electronic service and had in fact received notice of the filings.
- The most notable portion of the ruling came on the motion for summary judgment. Despite the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants had effectively admitted error in their CFPB responses, Judge Maddox found the request premature. One defendant submitted a declaration outlining the need for discovery, while the other identified unresolved factual issues.
- Ultimately, the judge concluded that discovery is necessary to explore key factual questions, including the nature of the alleged error, the systems and processes involved, and any defenses available to the defendants.
