Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Plaintiff, Robert E. Carrigan, brought action against the Defendant, Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida statutes. The dispute arose when the Defendant continued to communicate with the Plaintiff regarding a debt, despite receiving a cease communication notice. The Plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for liability, citing violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) for continued communication and 15 U.S.C. § 1692g for failing to provide timely validation notice. The Defendant's attempt to invoke a bona fide error defense under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) was rejected due to a lack of evidence showing adequate error-prevention procedures. Additionally, the Defendant was found to have violated Florida state law by operating without the requisite license. The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on liability and denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, with plans to address damages in a future proceeding.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bona Fide Error Defense under FDCPAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant unsuccessfully claimed a bona fide error defense due to lack of evidence of procedures to prevent such errors.
Reasoning: The Defendant failed to provide evidence of proper procedures to prevent such an error, relying solely on Mr. Scott's deposition, which indicated a lack of formal mail handling procedures.
Communications Cease Notice under FDCPAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant was found to have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) by continuing to communicate with the Plaintiff after receiving a cease communication letter.
Reasoning: Section 1692c(c) mandates that a debt collector must cease communication upon written notice from a consumer, with limited exceptions.
Licensing Requirement under Florida Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant violated Florida law by conducting business in the state without obtaining a required license.
Reasoning: The Court finds that the Defendant's Atlanta branch, by contacting the Plaintiff in Florida, was conducting business in the state and therefore needed a separate license, which it did not possess.
Notice of Debt's Validity under FDCPAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g by not providing written notice of the debt's validity within five days of the initial communication.
Reasoning: Additionally, the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g by not providing written notice of the debt's validity within five days of initial contact, as the Plaintiff stated he received no such notice.