JONES v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., 2:17-cv-00487

Plaintiff Blair Jones (consumer in Philadelphia) sued Southwest Credit Systems (SWC), a debt collector, under the FDCPA alleging abusive collection calls and failure to provide a § 1692g validation notice.
Disputed facts: Jones received roughly ten calls to his cellular phone over ~18 days in February 2016; some calls occurred in rapid succession and Jones told callers to stop.
SWC admits making the calls but contends its conduct did not constitute harassment and that it mailed a collection/validation letter to Jones on February 6, 2016.
Jones initially pleaded TCPA and FDCPA claims but later dropped the TCPA claim; the summary-judgment motion thus concerned only the FDCPA claims.
SWC moved for summary judgment arguing no FDCPA violation: (1) no intent to harass under § 1692d(5) despite the call frequency; and (2) it sent the required validation notice within five days.
The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to both harassment/intent and whether a proper § 1692g(a) validation notice was sent/received.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether repeated calls violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5) (calls made with intent to annoy/harass)	Jones: ~10 calls over 18 days, some in rapid succession and continued after he told callers to stop, showing intent to annoy/harass.	SWC: Admits calls but denies intent to harass; argues frequency/contents insufficient to prove harassment or intent.	Denied summary judgment — court found a genuine dispute of material fact on intent/harassment for a jury to decide.
Whether SWC provided the required § 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of initial communication	Jones: He never received any written validation notice advising of dispute/verification rights.	SWC: Mailed a detailed collection/validation letter on Feb. 6, 2016 to Jones’s residence and it was not returned as undeliverable.	Denied summary judgment — court found a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the required notice was provided/received.

Macfarlan v. Ivy Hill SNF, LLC, 675 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment framework—movant’s burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard)
Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (definition of a genuine dispute of material fact)
Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, P.C., 650 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2011) (purpose of the FDCPA to prohibit abusive collection practices)
Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 550 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2008) (FDCPA’s purpose addressing abusive tactics that harm consumers)
Caprio v. Healthcare Recovery Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013) (requirements and purpose of § 1692g validation notice)
Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 250 (3d Cir. 2000) (consumer is presumed to read collection notices with ordinary care)