Torres v. ProCollect, Inc.
865 F. Supp. 2d 1103
D. Colo.2012Background
- Plaintiff Torres alleges a July 6, 2011 voicemail from ProCollect, Inc. attempted debt collection and identified the caller as Jessaby, with a return number and a warning that information would be used to collect a debt.
- Torres claims the voicemail failed to disclose the debt collection company’s true name, violating FDCPA § 1692d(6).
- The court treats the voicemail as a “communication” under the FDCPA for purposes of § 1692d(6).
- The court interprets § 1692d(6) to require meaningful disclosure of the caller’s identity, and concludes that disclosure of the debt collection company’s name is required.
- Plaintiff’s claim survives a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and denial of summary judgment is appropriate; the court denies the motion in its entirety.
- The opinion discusses statutory interpretation, the remedial nature of the FDCPA, and related case law to determine what constitutes meaningful disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1692d(6) require disclosure of the debt collector’s name in a voicemail? | Torres argues meaningful disclosure includes the company’s name. | ProCollect contends no such disclosure is required. | Yes, §1692d(6) requires disclosure of the debt collection company’s name. |
| Are the complaint’s factual allegations plausibly stating a §1692d(6) claim? | Allegations regarding the voicemail suffice to state a plausible claim. | Dispute over plausibility; a single allegation could be insufficient. | Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly states a §1692d(6) claim. |
| Is judgment appropriate on the record—dismissal or summary judgment? | Section 1692d(6) requires disclosure; the claim should proceed. | No claim or no genuine dispute as to material facts. | Defendant’s motion is denied in part and denied in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doshay v. Global Credit Collection Corp., 796 F.Supp.2d 1301 (D. Colo. 2011) (voicemail qualifies as a FDCPA communication; identity disclosure required)
- Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F.Supp.2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (FDCPA §1692d(6) violation for failure to disclose identity)
- Baker v. Allstate Financial Services, Inc., 554 F.Supp.2d 945 (D. Minn. 2008) (FDCPA 1692d(6) disclosure expectations expanding beyond personal name)
- Costa v. Nat’l Action Fin. Servs., 634 F.Supp.2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (court discusses meaning of disclosure under §1692d(6))
- Beeders v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, 796 F.Supp.2d 1335 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (FDCPA 1692d(6) requires disclosure of the debt-collector entity)
- Frazier v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 767 F.Supp.2d 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (disclosures in telephone communications as required by §1692d(6))
- Wright v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc., 548 F.Supp. 591 (N.D. Ga. 1982) (early FDCPA interpretation supporting disclosure requirements)