Peckey v. Bank of America, N.A. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: April 10, 2015

Opinion by: Richard D. Bennett

Holdings:  The Court denied Defendant Loan Servicer’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for violations of three statutes: 1) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); 2) the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”); 3) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”).

While Defendant Loan Servicer’s communication to collect Plaintiff’s non-existent mortgage debt was time barred under the FDCPA, the Defendant’s more recent false representation regarding the non-existent debt was not time barred.  The Court held Plaintiff sufficiently pled that Defendant Loan Servicer possessed the requisite knowledge to violate the MCDCA.  The Court also held Defendant Loan Servicer’s alleged false reporting of delinquencies plausibly harmed Plaintiff’s credit score and caused him stress and anxiety.  Further, the Court held that Plaintiff sufficiently pled a violation of the MCPA. 

Facts:  Plaintiff defaulted on a loan from Defendant Bank to purchase property (the “Loan”).  To avoid foreclosure, Plaintiff agreed to a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure transaction (“DIL”) conveying the property to Defendant Bank.  Plaintiff fulfilled all of the requisite steps to complete the DIL.  Shortly thereafter, however, Defendant Bank sent Plaintiff a letter stating his loan would be serviced by Defendant Loan Servicer and Defendant Bank sent Plaintiff another letter stating it was unable to offer Plaintiff a DIL. 

Then, Defendant Loan Servicer sent Plaintiff a letter stating it had taken over loan servicing for Plaintiff’s property and sent Plaintiff a monthly payment notice demanding $55,190.29 for the current payment, past due payment, and late charges/fees.  In response, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Loan Servicer stating that he successfully completed a DIL with Defendant Bank and requested that it cease and desist making debt collection phone calls to him. Defendant Loan Servicer nevertheless continued to demand payment.  Plaintiff’s credit reports showed the DIL terminated the Loan, but that Plaintiff had a deficiency with Defendant Loan Servicer.

Defendant Loan Servicer filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA.

Analysis:  FDCPA:  The FDCPA requires that a plaintiff bring a claim within one year from the date on which a violation occurs (15 U.S.C.A. 1692k(d)).  Defendant Loan Servicer’s communication to collect Plaintiff’s non-existent debt occurred more than one year before suit was filed.  However, Defendant Loan Servicer’s false delinquency report to the credit bureaus and Plaintiff’s accessing of his credit reports occurred within one year before filing suit.  Thus, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim was not barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations.       

MCDCA:  Liability arises under Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202(8) when a defendant acted “with actual knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the information . . .”  Plaintiff’s allegation that he provided the DIL and other documentation to Defendant Loan Servicer was sufficient to plead that Defendant had “actual knowledge.”  Plaintiff alleged he sent a message to Defendant Loan Servicer indicating the Loan had been satisfied with title transferring by the DIL, that it failed to investigate Plaintiff’s response, and it failed to consider information readily available in Plaintiff’s credit history.  The Court ruled that this was sufficient to plead Defendant Loan Servicer acted with “reckless disregard.”  The Court further stated that, although Plaintiff bears the burden to prove Defendant Loan Servicer’s actions proximately caused his damages, it is plausible its action caused the harm to Plaintiff’s credit score as well as stress and anxiety.  

MCPA: The Court determined that because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a violation of the MCDCA and a violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA, Plaintiff sufficiently pled a violation of the MCPA.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Custom Direct, LLC v. Wynwyn, Inc. (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: May 4, 2010.

Opinion by: Judge Richard D. Bennett.

Held: Reaffirming that a plaintiff who is a business competitor of a defendant is not a "consumer" with standing to bring a claim under the Maryland Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., Comm. Law § 13-301, et seq. ("MDTPA") and holding that the maintenance of a passive Internet website that merely makes information available to viewers located in Maryland who may be interested in it is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.

Facts:

Plaintiff is one of the top manufacturers and suppliers of business and personal checks in the United States. After Defendant’s contract to perform Internet marketing for Plaintiff expired, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant continued to use Plaintiff’s trademarks to attract customers to Plaintiff’s competitors. Accordingly, Plaintiff sued Defendant for trademark and copyright infringement under the Lanham Act and the Maryland Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for unfair competition under common law.

Plaintiff also brought claims against a co-defendant, who is a full-time college student, living in Minnesota, who is not an employee of Defendant, and who has never resided in Maryland. This Co-Defendant after the contract expired maintained a website that offers products that compete with Plaintiff. While under contract with Plaintiff, Co-Defendant directed from his website potential customers navigating on the web (including those residing in Maryland) to the Plaintiff’s website and he received referral fees for any successful transactions between Plaintiff and a referred internet user. The Co-Defendant did not sell anything to Maryland residents.

Analysis:

Initially, the Court determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover statutory copyright damages, enhanced or punitive damages and attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act because Plaintiff’s copyright registration did not predate the date of first infringement.

Next, the Court held that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim under the MDTPA. In particular, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Penn-Plax, Inc. v. Schultz, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 906 (D. Md. 1997), which rejected the argument made by the Plaintiff that the MDTPA’s definition of “person” gives corporate plaintiffs standing to sue under the MDTPA. Because the statute expressly limits standing to consumers, the MDTPA claim was dismissed.

The Court also dismissed all claims against the Co-Defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court held to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident: two conditions had to be satisfied: (1) jurisdiction must be authorized under the State’s long-arm statute, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with due process. In order to comport with due process, a non-resident Defendant must have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that it “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” before a MD has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident.

To support jurisdiction, Plaintiff had to show that the Co-Defendant: “'(1) direct[ed] electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity create[d], in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's courts.'” (quoting ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002)). Passive internet activity, which does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it, does not satisfy the first or second elements of the ALS Scan test.

Applying this rule, the Court found no evidence that the Co-Defendant’s website targeted customers in Maryland, or that it was anything but passive in nature. Because any commissions the Co-defendant made arose from a consumer purchasing goods from the Plaintiff after linking from the Defendant’s site to Plaintiff’s, the Defendant was doing nothing more than making information available to persons interested in it. The Co-Defendant had no active or direct relationships with any of Plaintiff's purchasers and had even signed an agreement with the Plaintiff that prohibited the Co-Defendant from engaging in any active relationship or exchanging information with visitors to the Co-defendant site. As a result, the Co-Defendant’s electronic "contacts" with Md residents were insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over the Co-Defendant in Maryland.

The full opinion is available in PDF.