Hubbard, Kent v. Medicredit Inc.
3:19-cv-00784
W.D. Wis.May 19, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Kent William Hubbard (Wisconsin) sued MediCredit, Inc. (Missouri debt collector) alleging violations of the FDCPA, FCRA, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), seeking damages and an order to stop contacts.
- MediCredit sent an initial notice (June 5, 2019) that St. Mary’s Hospital had placed an unpaid account for collection; Hubbard replied with multiple letters (June–Aug. 2019) requesting debt verification, the collector’s authorized representative, and asking not to be called.
- MediCredit responded on July 9, July 17, and August 1, 2019 by sending itemized bills from St. Mary’s and brief cover letters that reiterated availability to assist.
- Hubbard’s pleadings included a bare breach-of-“unilateral contract” claim and conclusory assertions that failure to verify would show fraud and impose liability; he alleged no factual detail showing illegal disclosure or abusive collection tactics.
- The court screened the IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found the pleading failed Rule 8 and the substantive pleading standards for FDCPA, FCRA, and FCCPA claims; dismissal without prejudice was ordered but Hubbard was given until June 9, 2020 to file an amended complaint.
Issues:
| Issue | Hubbard's Argument | MediCredit's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA (§1692c — cease communications) | Hubbard says MediCredit continued collection despite his cease/verification letters and thus violated §1692c | MediCredit's responses were verification and itemized bills; Hubbard did not give a clear written cease-communication invoking §1692c | Dismissed: no plausible §1692c violation pleaded; responses fall within §1692c(c) exceptions; claim not permitted to proceed |
| FCRA (§1681b — impermissible access/use of consumer report) | Hubbard implies MediCredit accessed/used his consumer report without permissible purpose | MediCredit did not allege obtaining/using a consumer report; collecting a debt normally provides permissible purpose under §1681b(a)(3)(A) | Dismissed: no factual allegation that MediCredit obtained or misused a consumer report without a permissible purpose |
| FCCPA (Florida state-law collection practices) | Hubbard generally claims violations of FCCPA alongside FDCPA | MediCredit notes no facts tying misconduct to Florida or showing specific FCCPA prohibitions were violated | Dismissed: pleading fails to identify a specific FCCPA violation or any Florida connection; not enough notice under Rule 8 |
| In forma pauperis / Procedural posture | Hubbard sought to proceed IFP and have the claims adjudicated | The court screened the IFP complaint under §1915(e)(2) | Denied IFP and dismissed complaint without prejudice for failing Rule 8; plaintiff given leave to amend by June 9, 2020 |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2006) (Rule 8 short and plain statement requirement)
- St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
- Read v. MFP, Inc., 85 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (distinguishing FCCPA and FDCPA identification requirements)
- Kelly v. Duggan, 282 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (state statute not identical to FDCPA; federal interpretations given weight)