Askmo v. D.B.F Collection Corp.

Background

Maximillien Askmo sued D.B.F Collection Corp. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Askmo alleged that D.B.F., which had been retained to collect an alleged apartment debt, violated the FDCPA by contacting his mother by email and telephone on November 30, 2021. Askmo’s parents were not signatories to his lease, and D.B.F. did not obtain written authorization from him to contact them.

Askmo moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The motion sought judgment on liability only and did not provide evidence concerning his claimed damages. D.B.F. opposed the motion and asserted that Askmo had orally authorized its employee, Lisa Pope, to contact his parents during an earlier telephone conversation.

Ruling and Analysis

The court denied Askmo’s motion. Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA generally prohibits a debt collector from communicating about a debt with people other than specified persons, unless the consumer gave prior consent directly to the debt collector. The court held that the statute does not require that consent to be in writing. It contrasted this provision with another FDCPA provision that expressly refers to a consumer notifying a debt collector “in writing.” Because D.B.F. claimed that Askmo gave oral consent and Askmo did not rebut that claim, the court found a triable issue of fact that prevented summary judgment for Askmo.

The court also addressed Askmo’s claims under Sections 1692b, 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f. It concluded that Askmo had not shown a violation of Section 1692b because he did not claim that the communication with his mother sought location information. One telephone call and one email did not, as a matter of law, establish harassment under Section 1692d. Askmo also did not allege that the communications contained false or misleading representations, so the Section 1692e claim was unsupported. Finally, contacting Askmo’s mother, by itself, did not resemble the unfair or unconscionable conduct covered by Section 1692f.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. It stated that, by separate order, it would refer the matter for settlement and would later issue an order setting a trial date and pretrial deadlines.