Valle v. Westhill Exch., LLC
| Decision Date | 24 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: GJH-19-2304 |
| Parties | DIANA VALLE, Plaintiff, v. WESTHILL EXCHANGE, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Diana Valle filed this consumer protection action against Defendants Westhill Exchange, LLC ("Westhill") and NCB Management Services ("NCB") for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and Maryland laws. ECF No. 1. Defendant NCB was voluntarily dismissed from the action. ECF No. 16. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability on Count 3, the FDCPA claim against Defendant Westhill,1 ECF No. 17; Defendant Westhill's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18; and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Opposition to Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 20.2 No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the following reasons, Plaintiff'sMotion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave are granted, and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
In October 2017, Plaintiff Diana Valle took out a payday loan of $2,072.18 from Republic Bank & Trust Company ("RB&T"), trading as Elastic. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 23; ECF No. 9 ¶ 1; ECF No. 1-1 at 7-8. Valle was subsequently unable to make payments on the account as they were due and went into default. ECF No. 1 ¶ 24; ECF No. 9 ¶ 1. Defendant Westhill is a third-party debt collector, ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 3, although it is not a licensed debt collector in the state of Maryland, ECF No. 1 ¶ 53; ECF No. 9 ¶ 1. On April 18, 2018, Defendant Westhill entered into a Collection Service Agreement with ARI & Associates ("ARI") to collect 52 loan accounts that ARI had purchased from RB&T, including 29 payday loans made by RB&T trading as Elastic. ECF No. 18-2 ¶¶ 3-4, 6; ECF No. 17-2; ECF No. 18-3. One of these accounts was the $2,072.18 payday loan to Plaintiff. ECF No. 18-2 ¶¶ 4, 6; see also ECF No. 18-3. ARI provided account information for this loan, among the others, including the original lender name, debtor name (although misspelled), address, charge-off balance, account number, and current balance. ECF No. 18-3 at 9-10; see also ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 5. However, other information—including a telephone number, last payment date, last payment amount, and social security number—were not provided for this account despite being provided for the other accounts in the portfolio. ECF No. 20-2 at 13 (Defendant Westhill president's testimony); ECF No. 18-3 at 9-10 (); but see ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 5 ().
In April 2018, Cash Management Services, a third-party debt settlement company retained by Plaintiff, reached out to Defendant Westhill regarding Plaintiff's debt. See ECF No. 17-3 ¶¶ 3-4; ECF No. 17-6; ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 6. Defendant Westhill said that it was collecting the debt on behalf of ARI, and, after getting ARI's approval, negotiated a payment plan to settle and compromise the loan—$1,444.45, payable in monthly installments of $144.44 beginning May 12, 2018. See ECF No. 17-7; ECF No. 18-2 ¶¶ 6-7; ECF No. 17-3 ¶ 5. Plaintiff and Defendant Westhill entered into a settlement agreement according to those terms on May 4, 2018. ECF No. 17-7.
On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant NCB demanding payment of the loan. ECF No. 17-3 ¶ 7. She believed the call was a mistake and demanded proof that Defendant NCB was entitled to collect. Id. On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Elastic stating that the loan had been sold to Defendant NCB. ECF No. 17-8 at 1-2. In December 2018, Plaintiff received another call from Defendant NCB demanding payment of the loan. ECF No. 17-3 ¶ 8.
On February 17, 2019, Valle requested that Defendant Westhill provide verification that it had purchased the loan. ECF No. 17-8 at 1. She explained that she was filing suit against Defendant NCB and wanted to "be prepared for litigation." Id. On February 19, 2019, Tim Grant, Defendant Westhill's president, responded, "[w]e are working the debt on contingency ... but I can send you the verification." Id. (ellipses in original). Plaintiff followed up on March 13, 2019, asking, "[c]an you please send me the verification?" ECF No. 17-9 at 4. On April 1, 2019, she emailed him again, stating, Id. Mr. Grant responded on April 4, 2019, stating, Id. at 2.
Plaintiff then received a letter from Defendant NCB containing documentation concerning her request for validation of the debt. ECF No. 17-12. On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff contacted Mr. Grant to inform him that she had received the debt validation letter from Defendant NCB but had not received any documentation from Defendant Westhill. ECF No. 17-9 at 1-2. It appears that Mr. Grant misunderstood the validation she had received as being sent from Defendant Westhill, as he stated, "OK, that's a start, not quite sure why they sent that, we requested that they sen[d] the actual agreement." Id. at 1. In the same email, he told her, "I am sorry this is dragging on so long, if we cannot get resolution shortly, I will seek to just refund you on this account and forward everything back to our client." Id.
Plaintiff completed her payments to Defendant Westhill on April 2, 2019, and received a release of liability informing her that the account was closed. ECF No. 17-11; ECF No. 17-9 at 2 (). Mr. Grant states that shortly after Plaintiff completed her payments, Defendant Westhill attempted to wire transfer the funds to ARI, but ARI's bank account was closed. ECF No. 18-2 ¶ 15. Defendant Westhill then attempted to contact ARI by telephone, but the line had been disconnected. Id. An attempted in-person visit to ARI's office revealed that it was closed. Id.
On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants NCB and Westhill. ECF No. 1. On August 28, 2019, Mr. Grant emailed an individual at ARI "about a complaint" regarding "ARI collecting on debt not assigned to them." ECF No. 17-10.
Defendant Westhill answered the Complaint on November 18, 2019, ECF No. 9, and the parties began discovery, see ECF No. 14. On May 13, 2020, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant NCB from the action pursuant to a settlement agreement. ECF No. 16; see ECF No. 18-1 at 1. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment as to liability on Count 3, her FDCPA claim against Defendant Westhill. ECF No. 17. Defendant Westhill filed a Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on July 20, 2020. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion and reply in support of her motion on August 3, 2020, ECF No. 19, and moved for leave to supplement that response, adding citations to a newly available deposition transcript, on August 11, 2020, ECF No. 20. Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion on August 17, 2020. ECF No. 21.
Summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); Francis v. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 452 F.3d 299, 302 (4th Cir. 2006). A material fact is one "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A dispute of material fact is only "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. However, the nonmoving party "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another." Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985). The Court may only rely on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings, in order to fulfill its "affirmative obligation . . . to prevent 'factually unsupported claims or defenses' from proceeding to trial." Felty v.Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24).
Cross-motions for summary judgment require that the Court consider "each motion separately on its own merits 'to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.'" Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Philip Morris Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58, 62 n. 4 (1st Cir. 1997)). "When considering each individual motion, the court must take care to 'resolve all factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in the light most favorable' to the party opposing that motion." Id. (quoting Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir. 1996)). "The Court must deny both motions if it finds a genuine issue of material fact, 'but if there is no genuine issue and one or the other party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law, the court will render judgment.'" Wallace v. Paulos, No. DKC 2008-0251, 2009 WL 3216622, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2009) (citation omitted).
The FDCPA seeks "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). To succeed on an FDCPA...
To continue reading
Request your trial