In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA) case, finding three texts and three phone messages over eight weeks was not harassing and because the messages were clearly for another person, an unsophisticated consumer could not have thought defendants were attempting to collect a debt from the plaintiff.
In Nkadi v. Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC (Arcon) and Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC (Absolute), Absolute purchased credit card debt owed by an individual named “Shuan Purificacion” and hired Arcon to collect the debt. The plaintiff has no relationship with Purificacion, but claimed she received “numerous text messages over a short period of time” directed to Purificacion. After she responded “STOP” to the text messages, she then allegedly received multiple phone calls from Arcon. As a result, the plaintiff filed an action asserting multiple claims against the defendants, including under the FDCPA and TDCA.
Although the court denied an earlier motion to dismiss, the result was different at the summary judgment stage. The court agreed with the parties that the plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA and the TDCA for harassment should be construed in the same manner. Then, relying on other cases holding similar call volumes did not establish an intent to harass, held that the six communications did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants harassed the plaintiff. The court similarly found that the defendants did not engage in any unconscionable conduct under the FDCPA, holding an unsophisticated consumer would not think the defendants were trying to collect a debt from the plaintiff given that the messages were clearly addressed to Purificacion. The court found it “difficult to imagine that an individual named Audrey could reasonably believe that messages addressed to Shuan were meant for her.”
The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor.
