Source: http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000471.WWI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:47:55+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Ryan v. The Stark Collection Agency, Inc.
Ryan v. The Stark Collection Agency, Inc.
THE STARK COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., Defendant.
In this civil lawsuit, pro se plaintiff John Richard Ryan, Jr., was proceeding on a claim against defendant Stark Collection Agency, Inc. (“Stark”) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. et seq. On December 8, 2017, the court converted defendant's motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and set further deadlines for the parties to submit proposed findings of fact related to “solely the issue of precisely what debt was the subject of Stark's December 28, 2015, and January 8, 2016, letters sent to plaintiff at the Dane County Jail, rather than wait for full-blown, summary judgment submissions on all issues.” (Dkt. #18, at 7.) In accordance with that order, Stark submitted additional proposed findings of fact, Ryan responded with an opposition brief, and Stark has replied, requesting both judgment and its reasonable attorneys' fees. For the reasons that follow, the court is granting defendant's motion and entering judgment in its favor, but it is denying the request for fees.
The following facts are material to the subject of the letters Ryan received at the Dane County Jail. They have been drawn from the pleadings, Stark's proposed findings of fact and the evidence cited in those proposed findings, as needed. While the court gave Ryan the opportunity to both respond to Stark's proposed findings of fact and submit his own proposed facts, Ryan has chosen not to do so, instead submitting only an opposition brief. Out of deference to Ryan's pro se status, the court reviewed his opposition brief to determine whether his statements in that brief could conceivably be construed as factual averments sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. As his brief contains only argument, however, the court deems the following facts undisputed.
On August 21, 2015, Ryan had two judgments entered against him. First, he was convicted of a felony for violating Wis.Stat. § 946.42(3)(a), and the judgment of conviction ordered him to pay $268 in court costs. State of Wisconsin v. John R. Ryan, Jr., Case No. 2014CF26 (Dane Cty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 21, 2015). Second, he was convicted of a misdemeanor for violating Wis.Stat. § 946.41(1), and he was ordered to pay an additional $243 for court costs. State of Wisconsin v. John R. Ryan, Jr., Case No. 2015CF419 (Dane Cty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 21, 2015). Then on December 21, 2015, because Ryan failed to pay the judgments entered against him within 60 days of August 21, 2015, two more judgments were entered against Ryan, both for Unpaid Fines, Forfeitures and Other Financial Obligations. In Case No. 2014CF26, the judgment was for $268, and in Case No. 2015CF419, the judgment was for $243.
Stark employee Nathan Kalnins submitted a declaration in which he explains the process that Stark uses to send notices to debtors. Specifically, Stark uses a commercial letter-printing vendor to print and mail a majority of its notices. When Stark wants to send a letter to a debtor, Stark sends the vendor a data file containing the information to print on the notice. Then the vendor populates that data onto a template letter and mails the letter.
On December 21, 2015, Dane County Circuit Court referred both money judgments to Stark for collection from Ryan. Stark then assigned unique Stark account numbers to Ryan's judgments. It assigned Case No. 2015CF419 the account number C270546, and Case No. 2014CF26 the account number C270547.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 946
 v. 
 § 946
 v.