Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17954
| D. Maryland | 2011Background
- Bradshaw filed a class action in Maryland alleging Hilco debt collection conduct violated state and federal law.
- Hilco allegedly collected debts in Maryland without a required collection agency license and filed lawsuits against debtors.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA; Hilco removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment.
- The court previously noted Hilco obtained a Maryland license in 2010, affecting injunctive relief posture.
- The court grants partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on Counts II–IV and denies/partially grants Hilco’s cross motion, with Count I moot due to licensing.
- The court analyzes FDCPA claims first, finding Hilco violated MCALA by operating without a license and that such violation can support a federal FDCPA claim; the court also addresses related state-law claims and concludes damage-related proceedings should proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA liability for unlicensed collection activity | Hilco’s unlicensed lawsuits constitute prohibited FDCPA conduct | Hilco contends no per se FDCPA violation from licensing failure | Yes; unlicensed filing violates FDCPA §1692e(5) per se. |
| Whether MCALA licensing violation supports FDCPA claim | MCALA violation can trigger FDCPA liability | License status may not automatically trigger FDCPA liability | Yes; MCALA violation may support FDCPA claim. |
| Relation of FDCPA to MCDCA/MCPA claims | Unlicensed actions breach MCDCA, which supports MCPA | Separate state-law claims require independent proof | Granted; MCDCA and MCPA claims supported by licensing violation. |
| Bona fide error defense | No defense due to misinterpretation of law | Bona fide error applies to factual/clerical mistakes | Barred by Jerman; cannot rely on defense for legal misinterpretation. |
| Declaratory/injunctive relief under Count I | Relief warranted for ongoing licensing violations | Relief not available under FDCPA/MCDCA/MCPA; moot after licensing | Count I not available; moot due to license issuance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Hendersen-Webb, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D. Md. 1999) (MCDCA knowledge and remedies framework; FDCPA context)
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1995) (FDCPA applies to debt collectors in litigation; definition of debt collector)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (State-law licensing can support FDCPA claim; per se approach not universal)
- Mabe v. G.C. Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 32 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1994) (FDCPA liability triggered by prohibited collection practices)
- Carlson v. First Revenue Assurance, 359 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2004) (FDCPA violations tied to deceptive/illegal collection conduct)