Kelliher v. Target National Bank
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138196
| M.D. Fla. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Kelliher owed a Target consumer credit card balance; Target sought collection in 2010.
- Kelliher retained counsel in February 2010; Target knew of representation but continued to communicate.
- Target mailed monthly statements in July–September 2010 containing debt-collection language.
- Target hired Bonded Collection Corporation before September 2010 to collect the debt and used Bonded to contact Kelliher.
- Kelliher filed a four-count state-court complaint alleging FCCPA violations against Target and FDCPA/559.72(9) claims against Bonded; case was removed to federal court.
- Target moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court denied the motion, allowing FCCPA claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Target's debt statements violated the FCCPA | Kelliher argues statements with debt-collection language violate FCCPA §559.72(18). | Target contends statements complied with federal TILA/Regulation Z and did not require counsel notification. | Kelliher states a plausible FCCPA claim; denial of dismissal. |
| Whether indirect debt collection through Bonded violates the FCCPA | Kelliher asserts Target used Bonded to collect despite knowledge of counsel representation. | Target argues no duty to inform Bonded of representation and FDCPA defenses apply to debt collectors, not original creditors. | Kelliher states a plausible FCCPA claim; denial of dismissal. |
| Whether FCCPA applies to original creditors and preemption concerns with TILA/Reg Z | FCCPA applies to original creditors; TILA does not preempt FCCPA to foreclose protective state laws. | Target relies on federal preemption and Marcotte to argue no state-law obstacle to required statements. | FCCPA applies to Target; no complete preemption by TILA; claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must allege plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleaded claims)
- Marcotte v. Gen. Elec. Capital Servs., Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (federal law preempts state debt-collection letters if compliant with statute)
- Craig v. Park Fin. of Broward County, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (FCCPA applied to original creditors; Florida interpretations aligned with FTC guidance)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (FCCPA protections augment FDCPA rights; broad interpretation)
- Powers v. Professional Credit Services, Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 166 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (creditor's duty to disclose material facts to debt collector when consumer represented)