Johnson v. TrueAccord Corp.

1

CANDIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. TRUEACCORD CORP. Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-629

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

November 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Candis Johnson (“Johnson”) filed suit in this Court against Defendant TrueAccord Corp. (“TrueAccord”) under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). Johnson claimed that TrueAccord violated the FDCPA by using deceptive practices in violation of Section 1692e, and by continuing to collect the alleged debt without validating the alleged debt, in violation of Section 1692g. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 20.) TrueAccord filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 11 & 14.) Johnson responded. (Doc. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, TrueAccord's motion is GRANTED.

I. Facts

From the pleadings and evidence on file, the Court finds that the following facts are undisputed.

LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV”) purchases portfolios of charged-off debts. (Doc. No. 11-2 at PageID# 72 ¶ 4.) LVNV retained TrueAccord for collection services. (Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 84 ¶ 5.) TrueAccord is a debt collection agency. (Doc. No. 5 ¶¶ 5-6.)^[1] At all relevant times, TrueAccord, in the ordinary course of its business, regularly engaged in the practice of collecting debts on behalf of other individuals or entities. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

LVNV also engaged a debt collection master-servicer called Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (“Resurgent”). (Doc. No. 11-2 at PageID# 71 ¶ 2; see also Doc. No. 11-4 at PageID# 164.) Resurgent's paralegal Lacey Pearce served as a records custodian for LVNV and submitted an affidavit. (Doc. No. 11-2 at PageID# 71-72 ¶¶ 1-5.)

LVNV acquired from Credit One Bank a charged-off account in the amount of $683.52 in the name of Candis Johnson. (Id. at PageID# 72 ¶¶ 5-7.) On May 18, 2020, LVNV placed that account with TrueAccord for collection. (Id. at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 84 ¶ 5.)

On or about May 20, 2020, TrueAccord sent Johnson an email attempting to collect that purported debt and included in the email a notice that she had 30 days to dispute the validity of this purported debt. (Doc. No. 5 at ¶ 7; see also Doc. No. 12 at PageID# 165; Doc. No. 12-2 at PageID# 179.) That email provided:

Candis Johnson, we are writing to tell you about an important matter that should be resolved. It's possible that you weren't aware of your outstanding balance of $683.52, originally owed to Credit One Bank, N.A:

Learn about your options to resolve this. Here are the details:

Current creditor: LVNV Funding LLC

Original creditor: Credit One Bank, N.A.

Balance due: $683.52

Original creditor account ending in: 9271

(Doc. No. 12-1 at PageID# 179.) TrueAccord sent additional emails to Johnson on May 24 and May 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 8-9.) Although TrueAccord initially denied sending those, on summary judgment TrueAccord submits that it did send those additional two emails. (Compare Doc. No. 5 at ¶¶ 8-9 with Doc. No. 11-1 at PageID# 56.)

On June 2, 2020, Johnson responded to TrueAccord with a lengthy, pointed email:

To Whom It May Concern:

Be advised this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice that your claim is disputed and validation is requested. Under the Fair Debt collection Practices Act (FDCPA), I have the right to request validation of the debt you say I owe you. I am requesting proof that I am indeed the party you are asking to pay this debt, and there is some contractual obligation that is binding on me to pay this debt.

This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) of the FDCPA. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you.

At this time I will also inform you that if your offices have or continue to report invalidated information to any of the three major credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union), this action might constitute fraud under both federal and state laws. Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found or continues to report on any of my credit reports by your company or the company you represent, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you and your client for the following:

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. I am sure your legal staff will agree that non-compliance with this request could put your company in serious legal trouble with the FTC and other state or federal agencies.

If your offices are able to provide the proper documentation as requested in the following declaration, I will require 30 days to investigate this information and during such time all collection activity must cease and desist. Also, during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with legal counsel for suit. This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

It would be advisable that you and your client assure that your records are in order before I am forced to take legal action.

* * *

Please provide the following:

• Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.

• Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he/she agreed to pay the creditor.

• Any insurance claims been made by any creditor regarding this account.

• Any Judgments obtained by any creditor regarding this account.

• Name and address of alleged creditor.

• Name on file of alleged debtor.

• Alleged account number.

• Address on file for alleged debtor.

• Amount of alleged debt.

• Date this alleged debt became payable.

• Date of original charge off or delinquency.

• Verification that this debt was assigned or sold to collector.

• Complete accounting of alleged debt.

• Commission for debt collector if collection efforts are successful.

Please provide the name and address of the bonding agent for «COLLECTIONAGENCY» in case legal action becomes necessary. Your claim cannot and WILL NOT be considered if any portion of the above is not completed and returned with copies of all requested documents. This is a request for validation made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Please allow 30 days for processing after I receive this information back.

Best Regards

Candis Johnson

cc Federal Trade Commission

(Doc. No. 12-1 at PageID# 178-79; see also Doc. No. 11-4 at PageID# 113-15 33:22-24 & 35:15-38:9.) Johnson also sent a copy of her response and request for validation to TrueAccord via certified mail. (Doc. No. 11-1 at PageID# 56; Doc. No. 12 at PageID#165; Doc. No. 12-2.)

In deposition, Johnson admitted that she previously had a credit card account with Credit One Bank. (Doc. No. 11-4 at PageID# 114 37:7-20.) Johnson testified that she was certain that her Credit One account had been paid. (Id. at PageID# 115 38:1-9 & 38:18-39:1.) Notably, Johnson's email response to TrueAccord made no acknowledgement of her prior Credit One credit card and made no mention of having paid off that account. (See Doc. No. 12-1.)

In any event, as explained in TrueAccord's General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer Kelly Knepper-Stephens' affidavit: TrueAccord received Johnson's dispute email around June 2, 2020, and added a work restriction to the account. (Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 83-84 ¶¶ 1-3, 6.) A work restriction prohibits further collection communications until validation is sent out. (Id. at PageID# 84 ¶ 7.)

On or around June 15, 2020, Resurgent investigated Johnson's dispute and sent a verification letter and supporting documents to Johnson. (Doc. No. 11-2 at PageID# 72 ¶¶ 8-9.) TrueAccord did not communicate with Johnson in the interim (i.e., from June 2nd to June 15th).

TrueAccord heard nothing from Johnson in response to the verification communication. (Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 84 ¶ 8.) On July 20, 2020, the work restriction was removed, and on July 23, 2020, TrueAccord resumed its collection efforts. (Id.)

On August 8, 2020, Johnson sent again a dispute and request for validation of debt, which appears to be identical or substantially similar to what Johnson previously sent on June 2nd. (See Doc. No 11-3 at PageID# 101-03.) On August 13, 2020, TrueAccord received that second dispute. (Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 84 ¶ 10.) TrueAccord imposed another work restriction moratorium on collection efforts. (Id. at PageID# 84-85 ¶¶ 10 & 12.)

On or around August 14, 2020, Resurgent investigated Plaintiff's dispute and mailed Johnson a verification and supporting documents. (Doc. No. 11-2 at PageID# 72-73 ¶¶ 10-11 & PageID# 79-81.)

The Johnson account was recalled from TrueAccord on November 19, 2020, so its collection work ended. (Doc. No. 11-3 at PageID# 85 ¶ 13.) TrueAccord never reported Johnson to any credit reports. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

II. Law & Analysis

A. Standard of Review

“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issues of material fact exist.”...