Defendant Wins TCPA and FDCPA Lawsuit Based on Business Records
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:47 am
The District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently awarded a defendant summary judgment because the defendant’s call records directly contradicted the plaintiff’s vague recollection of events. The Plaintiff in Young v. Medicredit Inc., No. H-17-3701, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71020 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019), asserted claims against Defendant Medicredit Inc. (“Medicredit”) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Court’s ruling is an example of a defendant successfully relying on its own business records to rebut testimony that an unrecorded revocation of consent occurred.
Young alleged that she verbally revoked consent for a hospital architect data to call her on her cell phone with an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) regarding a debt she incurred from two hospital visits. At the time of treatment, Plaintiff provided written contractual consent for the hospital, its vendors, and its collectors to place calls regarding her debt. Although Plaintiff testified that she repeatedly asked Medicredit to stop calling her, she could not remember the exact dates of any alleged revocations.
Medicredit’s business records showed that there were only two calls during which it spoke with Young, and the call recordings for both evidenced Young saying nothing other than “who may I ask is calling” before hanging up. Medicredit’s records fully rebutted Young’s testimony by discrediting her recollection. Thus, the Court found that Young’s testimony did not create a triable issue because the call recordings provided an undisputed record of what actually occurred.
Further, Medicredit’s records showed that it called Young 79 times over the span of 681 days, or 22 months, and never called Young more than once per day. The Court ruled that the volume of calls “were not, and were not intended to be, harassing, oppressive or abusive” under the FDCPA.
Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff did not present any evidence that raised a genuine, triable issue regarding her claims under the TCPA or the FDCPA. The attorneys in Troutman Sanders’ Financial Services Litigation team regularly defend clients in TCPA and FDCPA claims in courts throughout the country. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions about this or any other ruling.
Young alleged that she verbally revoked consent for a hospital architect data to call her on her cell phone with an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) regarding a debt she incurred from two hospital visits. At the time of treatment, Plaintiff provided written contractual consent for the hospital, its vendors, and its collectors to place calls regarding her debt. Although Plaintiff testified that she repeatedly asked Medicredit to stop calling her, she could not remember the exact dates of any alleged revocations.
Medicredit’s business records showed that there were only two calls during which it spoke with Young, and the call recordings for both evidenced Young saying nothing other than “who may I ask is calling” before hanging up. Medicredit’s records fully rebutted Young’s testimony by discrediting her recollection. Thus, the Court found that Young’s testimony did not create a triable issue because the call recordings provided an undisputed record of what actually occurred.
Further, Medicredit’s records showed that it called Young 79 times over the span of 681 days, or 22 months, and never called Young more than once per day. The Court ruled that the volume of calls “were not, and were not intended to be, harassing, oppressive or abusive” under the FDCPA.
Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff did not present any evidence that raised a genuine, triable issue regarding her claims under the TCPA or the FDCPA. The attorneys in Troutman Sanders’ Financial Services Litigation team regularly defend clients in TCPA and FDCPA claims in courts throughout the country. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions about this or any other ruling.