Santiago-Duran v. Vanguard Parking Solutions Inc
1:24-cv-24089
S.D. Fla.Jan 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Santiago-Duran, alleges she was overcharged after using a private parking garage managed by Vanguard Parking Solutions in Miami, Florida, without knowledge of a "hidden" parking agreement.
- Defendant obtained plaintiff's personal information via her license plate from the Florida Department of Transportation and sent several collection letters demanding payment well above the typical fee.
- Santiago-Duran paid the demanded amount, then claimed she was deceived into paying an illegitimate invoice and never agreed to a contract with the defendant.
- She brought causes of action under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and a state unjust enrichment claim.
- Vanguard moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiff failed to state claims under the relevant statutes and that she voluntarily paid the fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court's Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA/FCCPA Debt Collector | Vanguard is a debt collector collecting on behalf of garage owner | Not a debt collector; collecting as property manager/fiduciary | Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts; motion denied |
| DPPA Violation | Use of personal info not authorized; consent was impossible | Use was authorized/consented; statutory exception applies | Sufficient to survive dismissal |
| Existence of Express Contract | No valid contract; could not see/read parking agreement | Express contract exists via parking agreement | Plaintiff plausibly alleged no consent; motion denied |
| Voluntary Payment Doctrine | Payment not knowing/voluntary; disputed facts | Plaintiff paid voluntarily with knowledge | Issue is factual; not for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires more than conclusions)
- Agrelo v. Affinity Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 841 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 2016) (FCCPA not limited to 'debt collectors')
- Harris v. Liberty Cmty. Mgmt., Inc., 702 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (exemptions to FDCPA debt collector definition)
- Thomas v. George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King, and Stevens, P.A., 525 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2008) (DPPA governs motor vehicle record use)