Gamble v. Fradkin & Weber
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4410
D. Maryland2012Background
- Gamble sues Fradkin & Weber, a debt-collection law firm, under the FDCPA and for intrusion upon seclusion.
- Debt originated from a Continental Finance MasterCard debt first sold in 2009 and ultimately to Fradkin & Weber in 2010.
- Gamble filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2010; discharge granted May 12, 2010.
- Fradkin & Weber sent a collection letter after discharge and filed a state court collection action in June 2010.
- Fradkin & Weber later learned of the discharge and dismissed the collection action in May 2011; Gamble later pursued an adversary proceeding and then filed this suit in June 2011.
- The court denies the FDCPA claim’s dismissal and grants the invasion-of-seclusion claim dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA liability without knowledge of falsity | Gamble argues Fradkin & Weber’s suit to collect a discharged debt violates §1692e regardless of knowledge. | Fradkin & Weber contends lack of knowledge defeats the false representation claim. | FDCPA claim survives; liability can attach without knowledge of falsity. |
| Bankruptcy code preemption of FDCPA claim | Gamble may pursue FDCPA relief for conduct post-discharge. | Bankruptcy Code provides exclusive remedy for discharge-related conduct. | Bankruptcy Code does not bar the FDCPA claim in this post-discharge conduct context. |
| Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) | Serving process at home intrudes on Gamble’s seclusion. | Conduct was reasonable and not highly offensive; no intrusion. | Invasion-of-privacy claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2007) (FDCPA applies to debt collectors, even in litigation.)
- Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assoc., Inc., 330 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 2003) (§1692e liability is objective; knowledge not required.)
- Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004) (FDCPA claim may proceed even when debt discharged.)
- Ross v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 480 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2007) (§1692e may be violated by false representations about debt status.)
- Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (Bankruptcy overlap with FDCPA discussed; some contexts preclude FDCPA claims.)
- Rios v. Bakalar & Assocs., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (FDCPA claims may be compatible with Bankruptcy Code relief in some contexts.)
- Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002) (Walls discusses broad preemption concerns where FDCPA suits clash with bankruptcy remedies.)