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.

Hagen v. Kramer

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 13, 2015

Della Virginia Hagen, Plaintiff,
v.
Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Defendant

For plaintiff: Amanda Roberson, Prentiss E. Cox, University of Minnesota Law Center, Minneapolis, MN.

For defendant: Derrick N. Weber, Esq. and Messerli & Kramer, Plymouth, MN.

Page 1029

ORDER

David S. Doty, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the cross motions for summary judgment by plaintiff Della Virginia Hagen and defendant Messerli & Kramer, P.A. (M& K). Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants Hagen's motion and denies M& K's motion.

BACKGROUND

This debt-collection dispute arises out of communications made by M& K to Hagen regarding a consumer debt that Hagen

Page 1030

incurred with Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (Capital One). Hagen opened a credit account with Capital One on June 23, 1998. See Newman Decl. ¶ 4. She failed to make payments on the account, and on June 4, 2007, Capital One retained M& K to collect on the debt. Id. On behalf of Capital One, M& K filed suit against Hagen in Hennepin County District Court. Id. Judgment was entered in favor of Capital One on December 28, 2007. Id.

At some point before July 11, 2013, M& K contacted Hagen to collect on the debt. Hagen Aff. ¶ 6. On July 11, 2013, Mike Persellin, an attorney for Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, sent a letter to M& K on behalf of Hagen. Id. ¶ 7. The letter stated that " pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ms. Hagen wants no further non-litigation contact from you or any other debt collector to whom the above account may be assigned or sold." Newman Decl. Ex. A (emphasis added).

M& K continued to contact Hagen after receiving the letter. On October 3, 2013, M& K sent Hagen a letter offering her options for repaying the debt. Id. Ex. B. The letter stated that the " purpose in writing to you is to determine whether we can settle this account for LESS than the current unpaid balance." Id. M& K sent Hagen a nearly identical letter on January 27, 2014. Id. Ex. C. Both letters stated that they were " attempt[s] to collect a debt." Id. Exs. B, C. Hagen filed this action on March 28, 2014, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The parties now cross-move for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

" The court shall grant summary judgment 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); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is material only when its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is genuine ...


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.