EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email [email protected] today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A complaint has been filed against a collector for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by ignoring a notification that the plaintiff was being represented by an attorney and for knowingly or willfully communicating with the plaintiff via text messages and calls to her cell phone using an automated telephone dialing system.
A copy of the complaint, filed in the District Court for the District of Nevada, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-02025 or by clicking here.
The plaintiff allegedly received phone calls and text messages from the defendant as it attempted to collect on an unpaid debt. In October, the plaintiff allegedly responded to a text message, indicating that she wanted contact from the defendant to cease and that the defendant should contact her counsel “for all dialogue regarding the Debt.” The defendant allegedly continued to send “automated” texts to the plaintiff’s cell phone and refused to stop contacting until the plaintiff provided a case number or other information regarding the attorney’s representation of the plaintiff.
The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Section 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA by contacting an individual known to be represented by an attorney, and Section 1692c(c) by engaging in communication after receiving written notification that the plaintiff refused to pay the debt, and Section 1692d because the communications were harassing or oppressive. The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Sections 227(b)(3)(B) and 227(b)(3)(C) of the TCPA by using an ATDS in a knowing or willful manner to contact the plaintiff on her cell phone without her prior express consent. The complaint also accuses the defendant of violating Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and invading her privacy.
