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.
Timing is everything. And context is king. Both of those sayings apply to the complaint in question, in which a collection operation is facing claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by continuing to placing a call to the plaintiff the day after it was allegedly informed that the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy protection, and for placing two more calls that resulted in a pair of generic voicemails similar to the Limited Content Message.
The background: The plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 petition in an Alabama bankruptcy court in early June. Among the scheduled debts were medical accounts owed to a hospital spine and neurology practice.
- Four days after the petition was filed, the defendant was allegedly informed by the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.
- The next day, the defendant allegedly called the plaintiff about one of the medical accounts. During that call, the plaintiff told the collector she had filed bankruptcy, according to the complaint.
- Two more calls followed, on July 16 and July 30, each leaving a voicemail. Transcripts included as exhibits show an agent giving a first name and the company name, asking for a return call, and inviting the plaintiff to speak with any available agent. Neither message references a debt or identifies the caller as a debt collector.
- The plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit.
The claims: The complaint brings four counts, all under the FDCPA.
- The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692e, including Section 1692e(2)(A), by demanding payment on a debt that had been included in a bankruptcy, which the complaint characterizes as a false representation of the character and legal status of the debt.
- The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692c(c) on the theory that the bankruptcy filing, the notice sent by the bankruptcy court, and the plaintiff’s statement during the July 10 call together operated as notice to cease communications, along with Section 1692c(a)(2) on the theory that the same bankruptcy notice put the defendant on notice that the plaintiff was represented by counsel as to her debts and made counsel’s name and address readily ascertainable.
- The defendant is accused of violating Section 1692d, on the theory that calling a consumer about a debt included in a bankruptcy is conduct whose natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse.
