Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 1, 2015

LAUREN JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ELTMAN, ELTMAN & COOPER, P.C., Defendant

Page 981

          For Lauren Jackson, Plaintiff: Travis Shackelford, Gary D. Nitzkin, Nitzkin & Assoc., Southfield, MI.

         For Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, PC, Defendant: Charity A. Olson, Olson Law Group, Ann Arbor, MI.

Page 982

         OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #12), (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #13), AND (3) ORDERING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING STATE-LAW CLAIMS

         Hon. MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In this action, Plaintiff Lauren Jackson (" Jackson" ) alleges that Defendant Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. (" Eltman" ) violated three sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. (the " FDCPA" ). First, Jackson claims that Eltman violated Sections 1692b(5) and 1692c(b) of the FDCPA when it communicated with her employer in connection with the collection of a debt. Second, Jackson alleges that Eltman violated Section 1692g(a) when it failed to provide her with a required notice concerning the terms and nature of her debt within five days of Eltman's " initial communication" with her.

         The parties have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Jackson on her claim under Sections 1692b(5) and 1692c(b) of the FDCPA and grants summary judgment in favor of Eltman on Jackson's claim under Section 1692g(a).

         RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         In November 2007, Providian Bank (" Providian" ) obtained a civil judgment against Jackson. ( See Jackson Deposition, ECF #13-2 at 19-20, Pg. ID 91.) Providian then hired Eltman to verify Jackson's employment and identify local counsel to assist in collecting the outstanding debt from the judgment.

         On April 14, 2014, Eltman sent correspondence by fax to Jackson's employer -- the retail establishment Lover's Lane. The fax consisted of two pages: a cover page and a form on which Eltman asked Lover's Lane to verify Jackson's employment (the " Collection Fax" ). ( See ECF #17-2.) The fax header on both pages of the Collection Fax included the word " COLLECTION" in all capital letters. ( See id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 218-219.) Lover's Lane's human resources manager gave the fax to Jackson and informed her that Eltman was seeking to verify her employment. ( See Jackson Dep. at 26, Pg. ID 92.)

         On April 21, 2014, Jackson called Eltman to find out why the company wanted to verify her employment. ( See id. at 27-28, Pg. ID 92; ECF #13-3 at 2, Pg. ID 96.) Jackson was connected to Eltman representative Theresa Middleton. ( See Jackson Affidavit, ECF #21-2 at ¶ ¶ 7-8.) Middleton asked for Jackson's " full name, [her] full address, and [her] full Social Security number. [After Jackson] provided all of that information ... [Middleton then] told [Jackson] that [Middleton] was not permitted to speak with [Jackson] and [a] supervisor would have to contact [Jackson] back." (Jackson Dep. at 30, Pg. ID 93.)

         According to Jackson, nobody from Eltman called her back or provided her with any information about the Collection Fax. ( See id. at 30-31, Pg. ID 93.) Jackson called Eltman a second time on April 30, 2014, but she again was unable to reach anyone who was willing to provide her any details about why Eltman was attempting to verify her employment. ( See id. at 31, Pg. ID 93.)

         GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

         A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it " shows that there is no genuine

Page 983

dispute as to any material fact...." U.S. SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc., 712 F.3d 321, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) (quotations omitted). When reviewing the record, " the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." Id. " The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [that party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Summary judgment is not appropriate when " the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." Id. at 251-252. Indeed, " [c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drafting of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge..." Id. at 255.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Eltman Violated Sections 1692b(5) and 1692c(b) of the FDCPA When It Communicated With Jackson's Employer in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.