Altstatt v. Abbott Osborn Jacobs PLC, 1:24-cv-00512

Audrey Altstatt sued Abbott Osborn Jacobs (AOJ), a law firm, and Citizens Bank, N.A., alleging violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA).
The claims stemmed from a prior state court collection action against Altstatt by Citizens Bank, which AOJ prosecuted.
Citizens Bank dismissed the state action without prejudice due to statute of limitations issues.
AOJ moved to dismiss the federal complaint, asserting immunity under Texas’ Attorney Immunity Doctrine.
Altstatt alleged AOJ is a debt collector based on its business model and activities, referencing AOJ’s website and lawsuit filings.
The court considered whether the complaint stated a plausible claim and whether attorney immunity barred suit against AOJ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AOJ is a debt collector under FDCPA	AOJ qualifies based on business focus and activities	Altstatt did not allege specific debt collection acts	Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient non-conclusory facts
Applicability of Attorney Immunity Doctrine	AOJ’s status as debt collector removes immunity	Actions taken as counsel are protected by immunity	Attorney immunity applies absent actionable, non-legal acts
Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations	Website and lawsuits show AOJ’s debt collection role	No facts of conduct beyond legal representation	Complaint lacks specific facts; amendment permitted
Leave to Amend Complaint	Should be given chance to amend pleading	Not directly addressed	Plaintiff granted leave to amend by specific date

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading requirement)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for motion to dismiss)
Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (FDCPA applies to attorneys regularly collecting debts)
Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (Texas attorney immunity doctrine)