Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P.
763 F. Supp. 2d 742
| E.D. Pa. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff sues Home Properties, L.P. (L.P.) and Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- L.P. is the management entity for Glen Brook Apartments; FCO is a debt-collection agency and CRA.
- Plaintiff resided at Glen Brook under a lease, then converted to month-to-month; balance disputes arose after vacating.
- Plaintiff received a collection attempt from FCO for a past-due amount and disputed the debt in writing.
- Plaintiff alleges FCO and L.P. used automated MITS standards to compile and report data as a Credit Report.
- Plaintiff asserts FCO and L.P. violated FCRA, FDCPA, FCEU, UTPCPL, and Pennsylvania § 7311.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCO is a CRA under the FCRA | Plaintiff asserts FCO provides and sells Credit Reports as a CRA. | FCO contends it is not a CRA or not properly subject to FCRA requirements. | Court finds FCO is a CRA for purposes of the motion. |
| Whether FCO’s June 21, 2010 and July 23, 2010 letters complied with FDCPA § 1692g | Plaintiff argues the notices were not effectively conveyed and overshadowed by demand language. | FCO contends the notices satisfied FDCPA requirements but disputes messaging. | Plaintiff states a claim that the letters were not adequately effective under the least sophisticated debtor standard. |
| Whether FCO’s verification of the disputed debt complied with FDCPA | Plaintiff alleges verification copied the same invoice, failing to show colorable entitlement. | FCO argues it verified the debt as required. | Court denies dismissal on Count II to allow development of verification adequacy. |
| Whether the FCEU supports a claim against L.P. and FDCPA violation extends to UTPCPL | Plaintiff contends FCO and L.P. engaged in unfair debt collection practices under FCEU, warranting UTPCPL claims. | L.P. argues corporate affiliate exemption excludes it from FDCPA/FCEU liability. | Court denies some FCEU/UTPCPL claims against L.P. but permits continued suits on others. |
| Whether § 7311 creates an implied private remedy in Pennsylvania | Plaintiff asserts implied civil remedy under § 7311 for unlawful collection practices. | Defendant argues there is no private remedy for § 7311 violations. | Court grants dismissal of Count V against FCO/denies implied private remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir.1997) (FCRA reinvestigation duties and disclosure requirements)
- Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (3d Cir.2000) (debt validation notice must be effectively conveyed to the least sophisticated debtor)
- Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir.1991) (notice not to be overshadowed by other statements)
- Vasquez v. Gertler & Gertler, Ltd., 987 F. Supp. 652 (N.D.Ill.1997) (validity of debt collection notices and rights under FDCPA)
- Terran v. Kaplan, 109 F.3d 1428 (9th Cir.1997) (notice adequacy under FDCPA discussed)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (Supreme Court 1975) (three-factor test for implied private rights of action)
- Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon, 557 Pa. 340 (Pa. 1999) (Cort framework applied to implied private remedies under PA law)
- Nolan v. Dep't of Public Welfare, 673 A.2d 414 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1996) (applying Cort-like reasoning to state statute implied remedies)