Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120410_0000900.NIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 11:22:04
Document Index: 598332077

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692']

| Eric Hendricks v. the Cbe Group
Eric Hendricks v. the Cbe Group
ERIC HENDRICKS, PLAINTIFF,v.THE CBE GROUP, INC.,DEFENDANT.
Eric Hendricks has sued The CBE Group, Inc. ("CBE") asserting claims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant violated various sections of the FDCPA when a CBE representative threatened him over the phone and when CBE called repeatedly over a period of two months. Now before me is defendant's motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, which I grant in part.
The following facts are not in dispute. In 2007 or 2008, plaintiff Hendricks had a billing dispute with Verizon and stopped paying the bill for his cellular phone service. Verizon attempted to collect on the unpaid account, but eventually turned over the debt to a series of collection agencies. In the fall of 2010, CBE obtained the account and began attempting to collect the debt from Hendricks. CBE tried to contact Hendricks at his old Verizon number starting on September 3, 2010, but the number had been disconnected in April of 2007 or 2008. On October 15, 2010, CBE determined that the number was no longer valid. CBE then ran an internal process to identify a valid phone number and on October 19, 2010, began calling Hendricks at a different, valid number.
On October 19, 2010, CBE called Hendricks, but no one answered the call. Within minutes, Hendricks returned the call at the number listed on his caller ID. Carrie Prugh, a CBE representative, answered the phone call from Hendricks. Prugh verified Hendrick's name and contact information, and identified herself as a CBE representative who had called regarding his Verizon account. Hendricks told Prugh that Verizon had overcharged him and complained that Verizon had been "pretty rude" about trying to collect the unpaid bills. (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 24-25) (DN 27). There were apparently no threats made during the phone conversation, as Hendricks remarked to Prugh that she seemed like a "nice person with a sweet voice." (Id. at ¶ 23). Prugh offered to settle the amount with Hendricks, and Hendricks indicated that he would accept, saying that he would call back by October 29, 2010, the day Prugh said the offer would expire. But Hendricks never called back, and, in fact, Hendricks never spoke to another CBE representative after the conversation with Prugh on October 19.
CBE, however, continued to try to contact Hendricks until December 10, 2010. On December 3, 2010, someone answered a call from a CBE representative but immediately hung up when the representative identified herself and asked to speak with Hendricks. The frequency of the calls are in dispute. CBE contends its records show that it called Hendricks 28 times between October 19 and December 10. Plaintiff says he received approximately 159 calls during this period. On December 13, 2010, CBE restricted Hendricks' account and no further collection efforts were made.
Summary judgment will be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In evaluating whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, courts look to evidence cited in the record, "including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Id. The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If it does so, to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must come forward with specific facts establishing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). On summary judgment "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, (2007). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The existence of "a mere scintilla of evidence" is insufficient to stave off summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The FDCPA "is designed to protect consumers from the unscrupulous antics of debt collectors, irrespective of whether a valid debt actually exists." Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 1998). Among other things, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from representing or implying "that nonpayment of any debt will result in ... the seizure ... of any property or wages ... unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action" (§ 1692e(4)); threatening "to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken" (§ 1692e(5)); engaging in "conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt" (§ 1692d); or "[c]ausing the telephone to ring ... repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass." (§ 1692d(5)).
Plaintiff makes essentially two claims in his complaint. First, he alleges that in September 2010 or early October 2010, a CBE employee made threats over the phone in violation of §§ 1692e(4) and 1692e(5). These threats allegedly included a representation that CBE would take Hendricks's tax return if he refused to pay the debt. Second, Hendricks alleges that CBE called him so frequently as to violate §§ 1692d and 1692d(5). In its motion for summary judgment, defendant argues that Hendricks has not come forward with any evidence of a threatening phone call, even making admissions to the contrary, and that CBE's call pattern and volume, along with its policies and procedures, do not evidence an intent to harass.
A. Claims under FDCPA §§ 1692e(4) and 1692e(5)
The dispute over plaintiff's first claim, that a CBE representative threatened him in September 2010 or early October 2010, revolves around whether CBE contacted Hendricks at a valid phone number before the October 19 conversation with Prugh. CBE maintains that none of its representatives spoke with Hendricks, let alone threatened him, prior to the October 19 conversation, and CBE has submitted internal call logs corroborating this claim. CBE argues that Hendricks's own self-serving testimony to the contrary is not sufficient to survive summary judgment. As the Seventh Circuit has held, "uncorroborated, self-serving testimony, if based on personal knowledge or firsthand experience, may prevent summary judgment against the non-moving party, as such testimony can be evidence of disputed material facts." Marr v. Bank of America, N.A., 662 F.3d 963, 968 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.3d 382, 389 (7th Cir. 2010)). Here, Hendricks has submitted his deposition testimony, in which he describes in some detail the allegedly threatening phone call.*fn1 But the testimony conflicts with certain admissions plaintiff has made.
As CBE points out in its reply brief, Hendricks has made several admissions that are fatal to his claim that a CBE employee threatened him in violation of §§ 1692e(4) and 1682e(5) in September or early October of 2010. Specifically, Hendricks admits in his response to defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts that (1) CBE tried to reach him only at an invalid number from September 3, 2010 to October 15, 2010; (2) the first call CBE placed to a valid number was on October 19, 2010; (3) CBE attempted to contact Hendricks at a valid number for a two-month period beginning on October 19, 2010; and (4) other than the October 19, 2010, conversation, Hendricks never had another conversation with CBE. (Pl.'s Response to Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 9-13, 37) (DN 38). In contrast, plaintiff also disputes that "CBE did not call [the valid phone number] prior to October 19, 2010." (Id. at ¶ 46). In disputing this single statement, plaintiff cannot undo the fact that he has admitted to a number of clear and detailed statements of fact.
The inconsistency merely reflects Hendricks's own conflicted testimony on the issue of the allegedly threatening phone call. For example, according to his deposition testimony, Hendricks returned Prugh's phone call on October 19 because he didn't recognize the phone number on his caller ID. (Pl.'s Ex. 1, Deposition of Eric Hendricks, pp. 27-28) (DN 36-2). Hendricks also stated that when Prugh called him, CBE was a new collection agency calling him and that he would have recognized the phone numbers of the other collection agencies that had contacted him. (Id.). These statements are consistent with his admission that CBE did not begin calling him at a valid number until October 19. Yet Hendricks also testified that he when he answered the allegedly threatening phone call from a CBE representative in September or early October, he recognized ...