United States District Court, D. Minnesota
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.
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.
This debt-collection dispute arises out of communications made by M& K to Hagen regarding a consumer debt that Hagen
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.
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 ...