ILNews

Judge grants attorney summary judgment in collections suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge ruled in favor of an Indianapolis attorney involved in a class-action suit alleging he violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The judge granted summary judgment to the attorney after finding the class representative fell outside the class definition.

Mark R. Rayl sued Merrill Scooter Moores in May 2009 alleging Moores’ form of initial debt collection communication violated the FDCPA. Moore had been hired to collect past-due homeowner's association fees. The notice of claims filed with the small claims court in each action and served upon the homeowners listed a number to call to reach Moores. Depending on when it was called, it went to one of two voicemail messages regarding the actions. The messages said Moores would only discuss the homeowner’s case at their court date.  

Class certification of the suit was denied in February but was later granted by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana’s Indianapolis Division in June. The class consisted of “All natural persons sued by Merrill Moores in the name of Wildcat Run Homeowner’s Association on a consumer debt who called the contact telephone number referenced on the Small Claims complaint and heard a voice mail message recorded by defendant Merrill Moores within one year prior to May 1, 2009.” Rayl was made class representative after Moores didn’t contest class certification and Rayl argued he could prove his claim that he did hear the voicemail.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

It turns out that based on the evidence in the summary judgment record, none of the class members actually had heard either voicemail, or that if they did, Moores had any written communication with them within five days after they called. Rayl couldn’t establish that the voicemails violated the FDCPA provisions regarding initial communications because he was unable to prove he called the voicemail line.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson removed Rayl as class representative Oct. 28 and postponed ruling on the merits of the other class members’ claims until a suitable class representative appears in the action. The attorneys for the class have 30 days to locate a new class representative.

Judge Magnus-Stinson denied Rayl’s motion for summary judgment as class representative but didn’t rule at the time as to his individual claim.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT