1, 15, 19.Īmsher did not move for summary judgment on the 18 U.S.C. Amsher then removed the case to this Court, and, after Gray amended his Complaint, Amsher moved for summary judgment. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C.
AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES PRO
In February 2018, Gray, proceeding pro se, filed suit against Amsher in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Gray alleges-although he does not submit evidence, via affidavit or otherwise-that the home loan was "needed as housing requirement for gaining custody" of his two children. Finally, in January 2018, Veterans United denied Gray a home loan prequalification. In November 2017, Gray's application for bank credit was denied. In October 2017, Credit Acceptance denied Gray vehicle financing. These events adversely affected Gray's credit score, and several institutions denied him credit. One week later, Amsher ceased trying to collect the debt. After speaking with Gray, Amsher marked the account as disputed. Gray insisted that the settlement agreement resolved both debts, despite clear language on the face of the agreement that confined the settlement only to the -8476 Account. However, the bulk of the call focused on whether the 2015 settlement agreement covered the -7782 Account. During the call, Amsher acknowledged that Gray believed the account was opened fraudulently. The account also had an authorized user, Haj Malika (phonetic), whose name Gray did not recognize. Although the -7782 Account had Gray's name, date of birth, and social security number, Gray informed Amsher that the account's Florida address did not match his Maryland address. Gray then called Amsher directly to dispute the debt.
The day of notification, Amsher confirmed with T-Mobile that the debt was "due and owing." Id. Gray disputed the debt with credit reporting agencies, and the agencies in turn notified Amsher of the dispute. In March 2017, T-Mobile placed the -7782 Account in collection status. However, because pro se pleadings are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," the Court will consider Gray's initial exhibits. 19-4 at 5.Īlthough Gray's initial Complaint was superseded by his Amended Complaint, Gray did not reattach any of the exhibits from the initial Complaint. Eventually, Gray and T-Mobile entered into a Settlement Agreement that resolved the dispute over the -8476 Account without any admission of liability. In 2015, T-Mobile placed the -8476 Account with a third-party for collection. The additional accounts each became delinquent. 2-1 at 9 (undated letter from the United States Office of Personnel Management stating that a cyber intrusion stole Gray's "Social Security Number and other personal information"). Indeed, at a time unknown to the Court, Gray's personal information was stolen. Gray asserts that the additional accounts were opened fraudulently. However, according to T-Mobile, Gray had two additional T-Mobile accounts, referred to here as the -8476 Account and the -7782 Account. In 2012, Plaintiff Jim Gray closed his account with T-Mobile USA, Inc. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part and grants in part Amsher's motion.Īlso pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jim Gray's request for discovery sanctions, which will be addressed during the upcoming telephone conference. The motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. ("Amsher")'s motion for summary judgment. Pending before the Court is Defendant Amsher Collection Services, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
