Baldwin v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc.
3:14-cv-02346
| M.D. Penn. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Richard and Laura Baldwin signed an agreement (including a credit application) with Prestigious Software in August 2013 and provided home and cell numbers plus references (Donna Moyer and Shawn Yorke).
- Plaintiffs attempted to cancel the agreement within the time period stated in the contract; defendant Monterey Financial Services thereafter placed collection calls to numbers provided by Plaintiffs (86 calls to 5 numbers over 166 days) and left voicemails for references on November 20, 2013.
- Plaintiffs sued under the FCEUA (73 P.S. § 2270.1 et seq.), alleging various subsections: (b)(1)(ii) (contacting third parties and stating consumer owes a debt), (b)(4)/(b)(4)(v) (repeated/harassing calls), and (b)(6)/(b)(6)(i) (unfair or unconscionable means), and sought relief through the UTPCPL remedial provision.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; the Court previously granted summary judgment on some FCEUA claims and denied on others, but later notified parties it was considering sua sponte summary judgment on the remaining FCEUA claims for lack of evidence of an ascertainable loss under the UTPCPL and invited Plaintiffs to submit evidence; Plaintiffs did not respond.
- The Court concluded the record lacked evidence that Plaintiffs suffered an "ascertainable loss of money or property" caused by the alleged FCEUA violations and therefore entered summary judgment for Defendant as to the remaining FCEUA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voicemail left with third party (Yorke) violated § 2270.4(b)(1)(ii) and gives FCEUA/UTPCPL relief | Monterey left messages identifying debt; this violated prohibition on stating consumer owes debt to third parties | Even if call violated FCEUA, Plaintiffs cannot show an ascertainable loss required by UTPCPL | Court: No viable UTPCPL injury; summary judgment for Defendant on § 2270.4(b)(1)(ii) (Yorke) |
| Whether repeated calls/hang-ups violate §§ 2270.4(b)(4) and (b)(4)(v) | 86 calls over 166 days and hang-ups show intent to harass and satisfy statutory elements | Calls do not produce ascertainable loss required for UTPCPL remedy | Court: Calls satisfy statutory harassment elements but no ascertainable loss shown; summary judgment for Defendant on (b)(4) and (b)(4)(v) |
| Whether using unfair or unconscionable means (including contacting friends) violates § 2270.4(b)(6)/(b)(6)(i) | Failure to restrict calling, contacting friends/neighbors and recordkeeping constitutes unfair/unconscionable collection practices | Same as above: absence of evidence of ascertainable loss under UTPCPL | Court: Statutory violation not supported by evidence of ascertainable loss; summary judgment for Defendant on (b)(6) and (b)(6)(i) |
| Whether FCEUA claims can be privately enforced without evidence of an ascertainable loss under the UTPCPL | FCEUA violation is actionable and Plaintiffs can obtain relief | FCEUA is enforceable only through UTPCPL, which requires ascertainable loss; Plaintiffs produced no evidence of such loss | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show ascertainable loss; all remaining FCEUA claims fail as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaymark v. Bank of Am., N.A., 783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015) (FCEUA claims enforceable only through UTPCPL; private action requires ascertainable loss)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (non-movant must point to specific facts showing genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (UTPCPL requires justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss for private actions)