Carroll v. U.S. Equities Corp.
1:18-cv-00667
| N.D.N.Y. | Mar 27, 2025Background
- Carroll, proceeding pro se, alleged various violations by U.S. Equities, Strumpf, and Siegel, related largely to the debt collection on a credit card account dating back to 2007.
- After obtaining a default state court judgment for over $28,000, the defendants initiated post-judgment collection procedures, including a restraint and execution against Carroll’s bank account in 2017.
- Carroll challenged the validity of the judgment's enforcement, alleging improper procedures and lack of attorney review under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), among other claims.
- Prior orders by two different district judges had dismissed the majority of Carroll’s claims as time-barred or lacking merit, but allowed two FDCPA issues related to the 2017 execution to proceed.
- Defendants sought reconsideration under Rule 54(b), arguing that the FDCPA did not apply because the debt was commercial, meaningful attorney review was conducted, and they qualified for the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense.
- The court ultimately granted reconsideration and dismissed all remaining claims, entering judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FDCPA applies to the underlying debt | Debt should be presumed consumer/covered | Debt is commercial, based on Carroll’s deposition | FDCPA does not apply to this debt |
| Whether there was a lack of meaningful attorney review | No sufficient attorney review before execution | Attorney (Strumpf) adequately reviewed the matter | Sufficient attorney review was shown |
| Whether failure to file transcript of judgment is actionable under FDCPA | Procedural error constitutes FDCPA violation | Any failure was a bona fide error, procedures were reasonable | Bona fide error defense applies |
| Whether Carroll’s later declaration contradicted his deposition (sham issue of fact) | Explanation for prior statements, claims FDCPA applies | Declaration should be disregarded as a sham contradicting clear deposition | Declaration disregarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (clarifies FDCPA bona fide error defense requirements)
- Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2002) (explains FDCPA’s consumer protections and requirements)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standards for reconsideration motions)
- Beauvoir v. Israel, 794 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2015) (determining FDCPA 'consumer debt' for coverage)
- Flores v. United States, 885 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2018) (conclusory assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment)