Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00117/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00117-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Richard A. Yeager and Deana J. Yeager 

bring claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 through 1692p, against defendant 

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC for failing to provide a 

notice of debt validation required to be provided under 

the statute. This case is before the court on the 

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

that Ocwen Loan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

be denied. Also before the court are Ocwen Loan’s 

objections to the recommendation and its included 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD A. YEAGER and 

DEANA J. YEAGER, 

individually and on behalf 

of a class of similarly 

situated individuals,

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

 v. ) 1:14cv117-MHT

) (WO)

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, )

)

 Defendant. )

Case 1:14-cv-00117-MHT-DAB Document 39 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 4
2

alternative motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. 

After an independent and de novo review of the record, 

the court is of the opinion that the objection should 

be overruled, the recommendation adopted, and the 

motions denied, with leave to Ocwen Loan to renew its 

standing arguments at any time after the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Spokeo, and to renew its remaining 

arguments on a motion for summary judgment.*

 

* The court pauses here to note that it is 

disturbed by defense counsel’s repeated 

mischaracterizations of the magistrate judge’s findings 

and reasoning. For example, defense counsel represents 

that Judge Greene “acknowledges that the Eleventh 

Circuit has held that Article III requires more than a 

statutory violation to create standing,” and suggests 

that he ignores the law in spite of this 

acknowledgement. Objection (doc. no. 34) at 3. Yet 

what defense counsel characterizes as an 

acknowledgement was simply the magistrate judge’s

setting forth Ocwen Loan’s argument; by doing so, the 

magistrate judge acknowledged only that the argument 

had been made. Worse, Ocwen Loan argues at length that 

the magistrate judge recommended denying Ocwen Loan’s 

motion “because he believes factual development is 

necessary to determine whether any of the prior 

servicers of Yeagers’ loan sent them a debt validation 

notice.” Id. at 6. That is false. What the 

magistrate judge actually wrote is that discovery is 

needed to determine whether the prior servicer was 

(continued)

Case 1:14-cv-00117-MHT-DAB Document 39 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 4
3

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 

(1) Defendant’s objections (doc. no. 34) are

overruled. 

(2) The United States Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation (doc. no. 33) is adopted. 

 

required to send a debt-validation notice, not whether 

it had sent one before. Report and Recommendation 

(doc. no. 33) at 10. As Ocwen Loan is surely aware, 

not all prior mortgage servicers are “debt collectors” 

under the FDCPA that are required to send such notices. 

See, e.g., Bentley v. Bank of Am., N.A., 773 F. Supp. 

2d 1367, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Dimitrouleas, J.) 

(FDCPA “explicitly excludes [from the definition of 

debt collector] mortgage servicing companies where the 

debt was not in default at the time it was assigned”). 

Nothing in the complaint allows this court to determine 

whether the prior servicer was a “debt collector” under 

the FDCPA that accordingly would have been required to 

send a debt-validation notice. The magistrate judge 

simply observed that discovery is required to determine 

whether Ocwen Loan was the first “debt collector” as 

defined by the FDCPA, and therefore whether it may have 

had the obligation to provide the debt-validation 

notice. While the court assumes that these 

mischaracterizations are the result of 

misunderstanding, sloppiness, or overzealousness rather 

than an attempt at deception, counsel would be wise to 

take greater care in characterizing the writings of a 

fellow judge before this court.

Case 1:14-cv-00117-MHT-DAB Document 39 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 4
(3) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings (doc. no. 27) is denied, albeit with leave to 

renew its arguments as set forth above. 

(4) Defendant’s alternate motion for certification 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (doc. no. 34) is 

denied.

(5) This case is referred back to the magistrate 

judge for further proceedings.

DONE, this the 3rd day of May, 2016.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00117-MHT-DAB Document 39 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 4