Doshay v. Global Credit Collection Corp.
796 F. Supp. 2d 1301
D. Colo.2011Background
- Plaintiff incurred a balance of approximately $1,150.41 on a Capital One card before 2009, later placed with Defendant Global Credit Collection Corporation for collection.
- Defendant engaged in collection efforts, including telephone calls and voicemail messages to Plaintiff during the year prior to suit.
- A voicemail left by Defendant’s employee did not identify the caller as a debt collector or state the purpose of the call, and did not disclose that it was attempting to collect a debt.
- Plaintiff disputed the debt and requested Defendant cease all further communications.
- Plaintiff filed suit on July 23, 2010 alleging FDCPA violations; Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability on February 28, 2011; court granted the motion on liability for the voicemail disclosure issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the voicemail violation breach FDCPA sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11)? | Doshay argues voicemail lacked meaningful disclosure as required by 1692d(6) and failed to reveal debt-collection status per 1692e(11). | Aisenberg/Canter contend there were no disputed facts or provide a contrary interpretation not disclosed in record. | Yes; voicemail violated 1692d(6) and 1692e(11); liability granted. |
| Whether other FDCPA violations alleged by plaintiff should be addressed at summary judgment. | Additional alleged violations may be viable; but one violation suffices under strict liability. | Defendant does not contest each possible violation at this stage; focus remains on the voicemails. | Court will not address other violations at this juncture; liability established on the voicemail claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costa v. Nat'l Action Fin. Servs., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (voicemail as a 'communication' under FDCPA requires meaningful disclosure)
- Foti v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (voicemail qualifies as a communication under FDCPA)
- Ramirez v. Apex Fin. Mgmt., L.L.C., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (communication includes voicemails; FDCPA applies to debt collectors)
- Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (FDCPA interpretations of debt-collection communications)
- Franklin v. Thompson, 981 F.2d 1168 (10th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment standard applied to FDCPA disputes in circuit)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (material facts determine whether a genuine issue exists)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (burden-shifting standards for summary judgment)