Michael Worsham v. Accounts Receivable Management
497 F. App'x 274
4th Cir.2012Background
- ARM, a debt-collection firm, attempted to locate a debtor, Bucheli, who is Worsham’s sister-in-law.
- ARM discovered Worsham’s number as a possible contact for Bucheli and called it about ten times in May 2010.
- Worsham answered two calls; a prerecorded menu asked him to press 1 if Martha and 2 if not; he pressed 2 on one occasion and hung up on another.
- Worsham never spoke with a live ARM representative.
- Worsham sued in state court alleging FDCPA, TCPA, MTCPA, and invasion of seclusion; ARM removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ARM; Worsham appealed the FDCPA and MTCPA judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA §1692b(3) third-party contact | Worsham contends calls were noncompliant due to continued contact after incomplete response. | ARM acted within §1692b(3)’s objective standard, continuing until a complete response was reasonably believed. | Affirmed: ARM could continue calls until a complete response was reasonably believed. |
| FDCPA §1692c(b) vicarious communications | Calls to third parties fall outside §1692b and violate §1692c(b). | Calls were permissible under §1692b, so §1692c(b) liability does not attach. | Affirmed: §1692c(b) liability not shown because calls were permitted under §1692b. |
| FDCPA §1692d(6) harassment | Continued calls with prompts constitute harassing conduct. | §1692d(6) is subject to the §1692b exemption; calls were permissible. | Affirmed: No §1692d(6) violation where calls were authorized by §1692b. |
| MTCPA action viability | MTCPA creates a state-law claim based on TCPA infringement. | MD intermediate appellate decision held MTCPA does not create this action; defer to state law holdings. | Affirmed: MTCPA claim foreclosed consistent with Worsham v. Ehrlich. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine issue)
- Pueschel v. Peters, 577 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2012) (factors for evaluating summary judgment evidence)
- Schott Motorcycle Supply, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 976 F.2d 58 (1st Cir. 1992) (plaintiff bound by pleadings; cannot create issues by contradicting own factual assertions)
- Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 1985) (defendant bound by pleading admissions; judicial admissions bind thereafter)
- United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (when state law issue unsettled, defer to intermediate appellate court's view)