Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

January 6, 2015

TAWANDA JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SEAN DUFEK, and CACH, LLC, Defendants

Decided January 5, 2015.

Page 135

For TAWANDA JONES, Plaintiff: Radi Dennis, LEAD ATTORNEY, CONSUMER JUSTICE ESQ, Washington, DC.

DAVID SEAN DUFEK, SR., Defendant, Pro se, San Diego, CA.

For CACH, LLC, Defendant: Mikhael D. Charnoff, LEAD ATTORNEY, PERRY CHARNOFF PLLC, Arlington, VA.

Page 136

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Dkt. # 12, 16]

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff, Tawanda Jones, (" plaintiff" or " Jones" ) filed this purported class action against defendants CACH, LLC (" CACH" ), a debt collection agency, and the Law Office of David Sean Dufek (" Dufek" ) in D.C. Superior Court on February 28, 2014, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (" FDCPA" ), the District of Columbia Debt Collection Law, D.C. Code § 28-3814, et seq. (" DCDCL" ), and the District of Columbia Consumer Protections Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq. (" DCCPPA" ), arising out of the attempted collection of a credit card debt that plaintiff owed CACH. See Compl. and Demand for Jury Trial [Dkt. #1-1] (" Complaint" or " Compl." ). Defendants removed the action to this Court on March 31, 2014, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, and plaintiff moved for class certification on May 28, 2014. See Pl.'s Mot. for Class Certification [Dkt. # 12]. CACH subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on June 27, 2014, arguing that the debt collection letter at issue does not violate the relevant statutes as a matter of law. See Def. Cach, LLC's Mot. to Dismiss on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) [Dkt. # 16] (" Def.'s Mem." ). After due consideration of defendant's motion, plaintiff's opposition thereto, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and DISMISSES the Complaint in its entirety. As a result, plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIED as moot.

BACKGROUND

CACH hired attorneys from Dufek's firm to send a demand letter to plaintiff

Page 137

for payment of her debt to CACH in the amount of $1,050.29. The letter, dated March 1, 2013, stated that Dufek had been " retained to collect the debt owed by you to CACH, LLC." See Compl. ¶ ¶ 26-27. The letter contained certain warnings and disclaimers, including that " we are acting in our capacity as a debt collector and at this time, no attorney with our law firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account." See Compl. ¶ ¶ 30-31, Ex. A.

Plaintiff claims that she " believed that an attorney was involved in the collection of the alleged debt" and that she " believed that Defendants could and would take legal action against her in connection with the alleged debt if payment was not made." Compl. ¶ ¶ 33-34. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants made false suggestions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.