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 [email protected] 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.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strict liability statute, which can sometimes put collectors into legal hot water when they attempt to collect on a debt they think is valid, but it’s actually not. That appears to be the situation in this case, in which a collector is being accused of violating the FDCPA because it attempted to collect on a debt that had been settled in a legal matter involving the plaintiff and another collector a month earlier.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of California, is available using case number 23-cv-00776 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff incurred a debt to a medical facility, which was placed with a collection agency. The plaintiff filed suit against the agency, and the case was settled this past January. Under the terms of the settlement, the agency was required to satisfy, in full, the balance of the debt while the plaintiff was required to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit, which he did.
Less than a month later, however, the medical facility sent the plaintiff a collection letter. Two weeks after that letter was sent, another agency sent the plaintiff a collection letter seeking to recover the debt.
The plaintiff is suing the original agency for breach of contract, violating the FDCPA, and violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He is also suing the second agency for violating the FDCPA and the RFDCPA, and he is suing the medical facility for violating the RFDCPA. The two agencies are accused of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f of the FDCPA.