931 F. Supp. 2d 451
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Pro se plaintiffs Joyce Hamlett and Letricia Hamlett sued Santander, HSBC Auto Finance, and HSBC Auto Credit in 2011 over debt-collection conduct.
- An amended complaint was filed on March 12, 2012.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 30, 2012; plaintiffs opposed via affidavit (May 30, 2012) and defendants replied (June 13, 2012).
- The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Brown, who issued an R&R February 18, 2013 recommending dismissal of invasion of privacy but denial of FDCPA, TCPA, and emotional distress claims.
- The district court adopted the R&R in full after reviewing for clear error, granting the motion as to invasion of privacy and denying it as to FDCPA, TCPA, and emotional distress claims.
- The result is that FDCPA and TCPA claims, and the intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress claim survive, while invasion of privacy intrusion upon seclusion is dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santander is a debt collector under the FDCPA | Hamlett argues Santander collected debt as a debt collector. | Santander is a creditor collecting its own debt; not a debt collector. | FDCPA claims survive; assignee status and other indicators show debt collector status. |
| Whether TCPA exemption for established business relationships applies | Letricia (non-debtor) should benefit from exemption; calls to cell phones are prohibited. | Exemption may apply to residential lines with established relationships. | Exemption does not apply to cell phones; TCPA claims survive. |
| Whether invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion is cognizable | Claims arise from repeated calls and alleged information gathering. | New York does not recognize a common-law intrusion upon seclusion in debt-collection context. | Invasion of privacy claim dismissed. |
| Whether intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress survives | Harassment and threats could support IIED under NY law. | Standard is high; calls alone insufficient. | IIED claim survives; facts alleged may be sufficiently extreme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., 533 F.Supp.2d 290 (E.D.N.Y.2008) (assignee can be a debt collector under FDCPA when collecting defaulted debt)
- Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Services, Inc., 147 F.3d 232 (2d Cir.1998) (creditor using a name implying third-party collection can trigger FDCPA)
- Conboy v. AT&T Corp., 241 F.3d 242 (2d Cir.2001) (high threshold for IIED; debt collectors' conduct assessed for outrageousness)
- Howell v. New York Post Co., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y.1993) (no common-law invasion of privacy right recognized in NY)