WAGNER v. WAYPOINT RESOURCE GROUP, LLC
5:18-cv-01813
| E.D. Pa. | Feb 14, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Arthur Wagner received four hang‑up calls to his cell phone over about one month from a number tracing to Waypoint Resources Group, LLC.
- Wagner redialed after the final hang‑up; a Waypoint representative answered and asked Wagner to verify his identity before providing information; Wagner terminated the call.
- Waypoint made no further calls; it investigated and concluded the underlying debt had been paid before Waypoint ever obtained the account.
- Wagner sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging violations including lack of meaningful disclosure, improper communications, and failure to provide statutory written notice and creditor identity.
- Waypoint moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court considered the allegations and attached documents showing payment before Waypoint’s communications.
- The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding Wagner did not plead any actionable FDCPA violation and amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hang‑up calls violated §1692d(6) (meaningful disclosure) | Caller ID showing Waypoint’s incoming number isn't "meaningful disclosure"; hang‑ups violate §1692d(6) | Hang‑up calls do not constitute placement of calls without meaningful disclosure under §1692d(6) | Dismissed: hang‑ups do not violate §1692d(6) |
| Whether requesting identifying information on callback violated §1692c | Waypoint improperly sought personal info and thus violated §1692c | §1692c does not bar a collector from requesting ID to confirm identity; it contemplates avoiding disclosure to third parties | Dismissed: no §1692c violation |
| Whether Waypoint failed to send §1692g(a) written notice and identify original creditor | Waypoint did not mail required written notice or name original creditor after initial communication | Written notice is not required if the consumer already paid the debt; Waypoint learned debt was paid prior to its collection activity | Dismissed: no §1692g(a) claim (and §1692g(b) inapplicable without a written request) |
| Whether attempting to collect a paid debt violated §1692e(2)(A) | If debt was already paid, Waypoint falsely represented the legal status/amount of the debt | No allegation Waypoint knew the debt was paid when it began contact; FDCPA does not require pre‑contact investigation; lack of pleaded violation negates need to address bona fide error defense | Dismissed: no §1692e(2)(A) claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (pleading standard and construing factual allegations at motion to dismiss)
- Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir.) (pleading standards and treatment of factual allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (facial plausibility standard; legal conclusions not presumed true)
- Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show failure to state a claim)
- Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406 (3d Cir.) (burden on moving party in Rule 12(b)(6))
- Davis v. Phelan Hallinan & Diamond PC, [citation="687 F. App'x 140"] (3d Cir.) (definition of "communication" under the FDCPA)
- Dixon v. Stern & Eisenburg, PC, [citation="652 F. App'x 128"] (3d Cir.) (FDCPA does not require a collector to independently investigate before collection)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.) (leave to amend standards)