Lensch v. Armada Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62565
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- Barbara Lensch sued Armada Corporation for FDCPA and WA collection-act claims over a $25 check dishonor from 2005.
- Armada sent a Notice of Dishonor (NOD) in 2008 with a cautionary criminal-charge potential that Lensch allegedly never received.
- Armada’s collectors allegedly left voicemails not identifying themselves as debt collectors after the initial contact.
- Lensch requested debt validation; Armada eventually provided the NOD; litigation tracked for years with a hearing date struck in 2010.
- Lensch asserted three FDCPA sections (e(4), (7), (11)) as violated; Armada argued RCW 62A.3-540 preempts FDCPA.
- The court held RCW 62A.3-540 preempted and granted summary judgment on the three FDCPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did NOD threaten criminal prosecution in violation of 1692e(4)? | Lensch argues the threat was unlawful and preempted by FDCPA. | Armada contends RCW 62A.3-540 authorizes the language. | Preemption; violation established |
| Did NOD threaten crime in violation of 1692e(7)? | NOD implied Lensch committed a crime to disgrace her. | RCW 62A.3-540 authorizes cautionary language. | Violation established |
| Did Armada's voicemails breach 1692e(11) by not disclosing identity as debt collector? | Subsequent communications must disclose debt-collection status. | Voicemails need not be disclosed if no debt info is conveyed. | Violation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (objective 'least sophisticated' standard for FDCPA liability)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (strict liability under the FDCPA)
- Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 907 (W.D. Mich. 2002) (intent to refer for prosecution not required for violation)
- Miller v. Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC, 608 F. Supp. 2d 389 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (verbal threats to prosecute can violate FDCPA)
- Costa v. Nat'l Action Fin. Servs., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (broad interpretation of communications under FDCPA)
- Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Associates., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (broad view of communications triggering 1692e(11))