James v. Wadas
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15662
10th Cir.2013Background
- George James sued Wadas and Shadakofsky for FDCPA violations arising from a Wyoming state court debt action and related discovery/fee representations.
- Shadakofsky defaulted in state court; Wadas, her attorney, filed an untimely answer/reply and amended disclosures without knowledge of the default.
- Wadas claimed legal fees were estimated at $3,000, later retracting that estimate as erroneous; James proceeded pro se in federal court in 2012.
- James alleged Wadas and Shadakofsky violated FDCPA sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f by misrepresenting fees and by improper litigation actions in state court.
- The district court granted summary judgment that Wadas was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and dismissed the vicarious-liability claim against Shadakofsky.
- On appeal, James challenges only whether Wadas is a debt collector; the court reviews the district court’s legal interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wadas is a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA | James argues Wadas regularly collects debts and is a debt collector. | Wadas contends she does not regularly engage in debt collection; debt collection is not a principal purpose of her practice. | Wadas is not a debt collector under FDCPA |
| Whether the district court properly used the Goldstein/regularity framework to assess regularity | James argues the district court misapplied regularity standards to find no regular debt collection. | Wadas argues the district court correctly applied factors showing lack of regular debt collection activity. | Court adopts Goldstein framework; district court’s use affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1995) (attorneys may be debt collectors when they regularly engage in debt collection activity)
- Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, Carroll & Bertolotti, 374 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2004) (identifies regularity factors for determining attorney debt-collection activity)
- Garrett v. Derbes, 110 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes principal purpose vs. regularity in debt collection analysis)
- Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses application to discovery/pleadings in debt collection)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (acknowledges role of litigation activities in FDCPA scope)