Pace v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87469
W.D. Mo.2012Background
- Plaintiff Pace, with past credit accounts to Southwestern Bell and Capital One, defaulted on those debts.
- Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, pursued collection activities against Pace in 2011.
- Pace alleges FDCPA violations including harassment and improper collection practices during calls.
- Pace kept phone logs and provided them to counsel; defendant produced no written call logs.
- Pace sent (or attempted to send) a cease-and-desist letter; Pace claims calls continued afterward.
- The court applies summary judgment standards and evaluates the FDCPA claims from an unsophisticated consumer perspective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated calls constitute harassment under FDCPA §1692d. | Pace contends frequent calls were harassing and intended to annoy. | Defendant asserts calls do not, without more, demonstrate harassment under the statute. | Harassment claim fails; no genuine issue; grant for defendant. |
| Whether defendant failed to disclose identity in violation of §1692d(6). | Defendant did not properly identify itself in calls. | Defendant has a policy mandating identification and evidence showed identification occurred. | No genuine issue; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Whether continuing calls after a cease communication letter violated §1692c. | Defendant received a cease-call letter and still called. | Plaintiff did not prove receipt or proper mailing; letter content unknown. | Claim fails for lack of proof of receipt; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Whether the stop-notice was adequately delivered/received under §1692c. | There was a mailing that should have been received; presumptions of receipt apply to routine mailings. | Record insufficient to prove receipt; no adverse effect shown. | No triable issue; claim fails for want of proof of receipt. |
| Whether defendant's statement about credit reporting violated §1692e. | Statement implied potential credit-report consequences; misleading or threatening. | Statement not false or threatening under §1692e; not a prohibited action. | No genuine issue; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co., LLC, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (harassment analysis under FDCPA requires more than mere call frequency)
- Bellecourt v. United States, 784 F. Supp. 623 (D. Minn. 1992) (presumption of receipt insufficient; need actual receipt proof)
- Ramirez v. Apex Financial Management, LLC, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (cease-communication notice timing and receipt impact FDCPA analysis)
- Durthaler v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (structure of §1692d considerations; role of intent and frequency)
- Arteaga v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (FDCPA §1692e/§1692d analysis; no implied threat where statements not false)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine issue of material fact required)