Henning v. Tucker, Albin & Associates, Inc., 3:17-cv-01996

Plaintiffs Stephen and Christina Henning operate Henningstead Holsteins, a family dairy farm in Pennsylvania, from which they obtained goods and services from DeLaval Dairy.
Plaintiffs failed to pay for certain DeLaval products/services; DeLaval referred the account to defendant Tucker, Albin & Associates, Inc. for collection; James White is a Tucker representative named in the suit.
Plaintiffs sued Tucker and White under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging harassment and intimidation in debt collection.
After discovery, Tucker moved for summary judgment arguing the debt was commercial (farm business) not consumer, so FDCPA does not apply.
The parties agreed Tucker was a debt collector and engaged in collection activity; the sole disputed legal issue was whether the underlying debt was a consumer debt within the FDCPA.
The court found plaintiffs used DeLaval’s products/services in connection with a profit-generating farm and held the debt was commercial, granting summary judgment for Tucker; James White was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the debt is a "consumer" debt under the FDCPA	Henning: residence/farm is household; FDCPA protects them	Tucker: debt arose from farm business use, so it is commercial and outside FDCPA	Court: Debt is commercial; FDCPA does not apply

Staub v. Harris, 626 F.2d 275 (3d Cir. 1980) (FDCPA inapplicable to commercial/business debts)
Knabe v. Boury, 114 F.3d 407 (3d Cir. 1997) (summary judgment standard overview)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may meet summary judgment burden by showing nonmovant lacks evidence)
Int'l Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 898 F.2d 946 (3d Cir. 1990) (credit to viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)