Sued a collection agency; I win--If I can provide 3 case references

[Guest Yoplait]

Cliff's notes version:

I'm in the 9th Circuit. Sued a collection agency over an identity theft created debt. Collection agency took it to trial. One of the bigger claims I made was that they continued collection activities by verifying the debt with credit bureaus after being notified the debt was fraudulent and receiving a written validation demand, which they did not respond to. One of the things I cited in my case was the infamous FTC "Cass" letter, which somehow became the thing the judge is most interested in.

He didn't issue a ruling that day, but rather sent a mailing stating that I should provide a memorandum to the court listing 3 cases showing that verifying the disputed information with the credit bureaus without providing validation to the consumer was an affirmative collection activity on the part of the Defendant.

The wording of his letter is not ambiguous in the slightest: I find and provide these 3 cases, and I win. This ends up going on record in the 9th Circuit as yet another piece of case history. Actual damages will be significant. I lost my job because of these people. If I don't provide...well, I don't know how it'll turn out at that point seeing as how the collection agency's staff lied under oath about how they sent a dunning letter to a proper address (they didn't) and how they claimed they didn't have affidavits of fraud for a consumer to fill out and return to correct issues like this amiably (which is something they said they had originally).

I was looking at Nelson v. Chase since it's here in the 9th, but I would prefer something that outright says that verifying the information to try and keep it on a consumer's credit report is a collection activity. Anyone know of any off the tops of their heads?

[Rick9972]

I think you are chasing this the wrong way. The angle is to show that CA communicating with CRA is collection activity.

First, reporting an alleged debt by a debt collector to a consumer reporting agency is a “communication” in connection with the collection of a debt and gives rise to a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e[, of the FDCPA. Sullivan v. Equifax, 2002 WestLaw 799856 [u.S.D.C. E.D. Pa. 2002].

Next, failing to communicate the disputed nature of an alleged debt to consumer reporting agencies and other third persons is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e[. Acosta v. Campbell, 2006 WestLaw 3804729 [u.S.D.C. M.D. Fla. 2006]; Ryan v. Wexler & Wexler, 113 F.3d 91, 92 [7th Cir. 1997]; Sempler v. JBC Legal Group, 2005 WestLaw 2172377 [u.S.D.C. W.D. Wash. 2005]; Brady v. Credit Recovery Group, 160 F.3d 64 [1st Cir. 1998]; Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., 2006 WestLaw 3478986 and 455 F.Supp.2d 1006 [u.S.D.C. N.D. 2006].

Third, publication of a false representation as to the character, amount or legal status of an alleged debt results in a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e[2]. The decision in Purnell v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, Slip Copy, 2007 WestLaw 421828 [u.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. 2007], is directly on point. The court agreed with plaintiff’s position that such reporting of the alleged debt [disputed as fraud-related] gives rise to FDCPA claims. The reporting or threatened reporting of credit information which it knew or should have known as false is a violation of the FDCPA.

Some ideas for you to start with.