United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
ALLENE M. ECKER, Plaintiff,
ADVANTAGE ASSETS II, INC., et al., Defendants.
Bissoon United States District Judge
before the Court is Defendants Advantage Assets II, Inc. and
LTD Financial Services, LP (“Defendants”)'s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12). For
the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
to Defendants' Motion, Assets II, Inc.
(“Advantage”) is a “debt buyer” that
“retained LTD [Financial Services, LP
(“LTD”)] to collect on the judgment that AA II
obtained against Plaintiff in or about 2012 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County.” (Doc. 14 at 2). On
December 15, 2016, an employee of LTD called Plaintiff to
collect on that judgment. The following is a transcript of
the relevant portion of that discussion:
LTD: Okay, are you aware I mean, do you work?
Plaintiff: Yes, I do.
LTD: Cause just be aware, check your state law and find out
what judgments, what they can do to access or get the funds
that is theirs because once a judge signs off on a judgment
they have certain rights to go in and get money and sometimes
it can be without your permission, because it has been signed
Plaintiff: Okay LTD: Okay so check those state laws where you
are at to see if you have any property, there may be
possibility of liens that are on there.
Plaintiff: I don't.
LTD: property as well. So check those laws if you are in the
PA and find out what is it they can do in that state if you
have an active judgment.
See Affidavit of Sondra Jurica (Doc. 13-1) at ¶
5; Audio Recording of the December 15, 2016 Telephone Call
alleges that “[a]s a result of that conversation, and
the intonation and articulation used by the debt collector,
Ms. Ecker believed that her wages would be subject to
garnishment by Advantage.” (Doc. 9 at ¶ 41).
Plaintiff asserts that wage garnishment would not be
permitted under Pennsylvania law. (Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 35,
50-54). Accordingly, Plaintiff claims that the threat to
garnish wages during December 15, 2016 Telephone Call was
“false, deceptive, and misleading, ” and thus
violated Sections 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10) of the FDCPA.
(Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 50- 56, 60). Plaintiff also alleges
that Defendants' conduct during the December 15, 2016
Telephone Call violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA. (Doc. 9
at ¶ 61).