Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A.
676 F.3d 365
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Warren sued Sessoms & Rogers, P.A. and Lee C. Rogers alleging FDCPA violations (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692c).
- Defendants offered Rule 68 judgment prior to discovery for specified damages and costs; Warren rejected the offer.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint as failing to plead a material violation or willful conduct.
- The offer mischaracterized potential actual damages; the court found mootness not established by the offer.
- The court held the offer did not moot the case and that Warren adequately alleged § 1692e(11) and § 1692c(a)(2) claims.
- Appellate court remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the bona fide error defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 68 moots the case. | Warren argues the offer did not guarantee all claimed damages, so not moot. | Defendants contend the offer provided full relief and mooted the action. | Offer did not moot the case. |
| Whether § 1692e(11) requires materiality. | A failure to disclose that communication is from a debt collector violates § 1692e(11). | Materiality is not required for this § 1692e(11) violation. | District court erred; § 1692e(11) can be violated without materiality. |
| Whether § 1692c(a)(2) was adequately alleged as knowing communication with represented consumer. | Defendants communicated directly to Warren after she stated attorney representation. | Not challenged; argument framed as not sufficient to state a violation. | Allegation sufficient; violation plausibly alleged. |
| Whether the district court properly required willfulness to establish liability. | FDCPA liability can attach without showing willful conduct; bona fide error defense as affirmative defense. | Plaintiff must show willfulness; district court required this. | Willfulness not required to plead; bona fide error defense remains available on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., 634 F.3d 754 (4th Cir. 2011) (mootness depends on unequivocal Rule 68 offer; conditional offers fail)
- O’Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc., 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009) (Rule 68 full damages can moot claims)
- Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 597 (7th Cir. 1991) (full amount of damages and costs can moot)
- Zimmerman v. Bell, 800 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1986) (Rule 68 mootness when full relief offered)
- Abrams v. Interco, Inc., 719 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1983) ( Rule 68 offers can moot; need full relief)
- Simmons v. Sayyed, none (4th Cir. 2010) (discussed as analogy for ambiguity in offers (FDCPA context))
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010) (FDCPA purpose and broad statutory guidance)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA liability without proof of intentional violation)
- Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 629 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2011) (intent not required; bona fide defense discussed)