Jenkins v. RJM Acquisitions, LLC
5:10-cv-00027
W.D.N.C.Feb 14, 2013Background
- Jenkins filed suit Feb 16, 2010 in North Carolina; RJM removed to federal court.
- Jenkins amended complaint Sep 22, 2010 alleging six claims under FCRA, FDCPA, and NC debt statutes.
- RJM purchased Jenkins’ defaulted accounts and sent settlement letters; debate over statute and time-barred debts.
- Accounts were charged-off in 1994; Jenkins relocated from California to North Carolina in 2007.
- Jenkins bankruptcy filed Apr 11, 2012; Trustee intervened May 12, 2012 as real party in interest.
- Court granted cross-motions for summary judgment; RJM prevailed on most state-law claims and some FCRA issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA §1681b permissible purpose | Jenkins argues RJM lacked permissible purpose to obtain report. | RJM asserts debt purchases give permissible purpose. | RJM had permissible purpose; Jenkins’ MSJ denied, RJM MSJ granted. |
| NC §58-70-115(5) retroactivity | Section 115(5) supported ongoing collection; retroactive. | Section 115(5) non-retroactive; pre-2009 activity unaffected. | Not retroactive; pre-Feb 24, 2009 activity not covered; RJM granted. |
| NC §58-70-115(1) written acknowledgment | RJM sought/received written acknowledgment of time-barred debt. | No written acknowledgment sought; only letters and oral dispute. | No written acknowledgment sought; no violation. |
| NC §58-70-110 deceptive representations | RJM’s actions were fraudulent or deceptive to collect debt. | Actions did not rise to fraudulent deceptive conduct under statute. | No violation; RJM granted. |
| FDCPA duplicative liability (sixth claim) | FDCPA violation and NC statute duplicate liability. | FDCPA not violated; NC claim separately addressed. | FDCPA not violated; RJM granted on sixth claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts must be genuinely in dispute for trial)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper)
- Yohay v. City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, 827 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987) (impermissible purpose for credit reports; debt collection context)
- Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2001) (FDCPA scope regarding time-barred debts and acknowledgments)
- George W. Helm Co. v. Griffin, 16 S.E. 1023 (N.C. 1893) (written acknowledgment required to renew statute of limitations)
- Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, L.L.C., 630 F.3d 351 (4th Cir. 2011) (separate consideration of cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2003) (analyze cross-motions for summary judgment separately)