Rios v. Bakalar & Associates, P.A.
795 F. Supp. 2d 1368
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Rios had some debt discharged in bankruptcy while Bakalar & Associates pursued collection.
- Bakalar & Associates, a debt-collection firm, sent a consumer debt collection letter on November 18, 2010.
- Rios alleges the letter sought to collect discharged debt, violating FDCPA § 1692e(2).
- Bakalar argues bankruptcy discharge precludes FDCPA claims in the bankruptcy context.
- Court addresses whether a § 1692e claim can proceed despite discharge and whether Walls controls.
- Motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied; the initial complaint dismissal is denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can §1692e claim survive for discharged debt | Rios argues Randolph allows claims for discharged debt | Bakalar argues Walls bars FDCPA claims in discharged-debt context | Claim may proceed; not precluded by Walls |
| Does Bankruptcy Code preclude FDCPA claims in discharged-debt context | Randolph persuasive; bankruptcy does not repeal FDCPA | Walls suggests universal preclusion | Bankruptcy Code does not repeal the FDCPA; not precluded |
| Is Walls' language a universal preclusion or narrow | Disagree that Walls bars all FDCPA claims | Walls language implies preclusion of FDCPA claims for discharged debts | Walls is not read as universal preclusion; Randolph persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses preclusion of FDCPA claims in bankruptcy context)
- Randolph v. IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2004) (holds debt collectors violate §1692e by collecting discharged debt; persuasive for FDCPA claim)
- Turner v. J.V.D.B. & Assocs., 330 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 2003) (allows §1692e claim after bankruptcy discharge on misrepresentation theory)