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.

Madison v. Wheat

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

June 23, 2016

ELBERT MADISON, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT B. WHEAT, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          GEORGE J. HAZEL, District Judge.

         In this case, pro se Plaintiff Elbert Madison, Jr. alleges that Defendants, CACH LLC represented by Attorney Scott B. Wheat ("CACH")[1] and the Circuit Court for the County of Montgomery ("Circuit Court"), violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). This Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order address Madison's Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. For the reasons stated below, Madison's Complaint is DISMISSED and he is GRANTED twenty-one (21) days to supplement his Complaint.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 25, 2014, CACH, a Denver, Colorado collection company, sued Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., and Brenda Madison, a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland, in the District Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Oh March 6, 2015, the district court dismissed the claim against Brenda Madison, and a consent judgment was entered against Plaintiff. See CACH, LLC v. Madison, et al., Case No. 0602000028792014 (Montgomery Cnty. Dist. Ct.). Plaintiff then appealed the judgment entered against him to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Brenda Madison was not named in the Circuit Court action. See CACH, LLC v. Madison, Case No. 9164D (Montgomery Cnty. Cir. Ct.).[2] On June 17, 2015, the Circuit Court awarded judgment in the amount of $3, 417.21 against Plaintiff. Id. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint seeking damages against CACH, alleging violation of the FDCPA. Plaintiff also seeks leave to file in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As he appears to be indigent, his motion is granted.

         Madison alleges that CACH, LLC:

... submitted a claim on consumer debt where the information was knowingly] incorrect, or potentially false... about the place of residence of the defendant in order to collect on this debt which was uncollectible, or protected from being collected by collection agency where the Defendant was an established resident of Washington, DC to the Montgomery Courts Commissioner of Maryland. This is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection [P]ractice[s] [A]ct. Under Public Law 111-203, title X, STAT. 2092 (2010), Section 1691-1692p (15 USC 1601), Section 811(a)(2) - legal action by debt collection. This act expressly state[s] any legal action as a debt against any consumer shall - "bring such action only in the judicial district of similar enti[t]y - (a) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon, or (b) in which the consumer resides at the commencement of such action." Moreover, Montgomery County Courts [Commissioner] Authority lacks jurisdictional authority under Md. Courts and Judicial proceedings Code Ann. Section 6-102 and Section 6-201. As a result of the actions taken by both the plaintiff and the courts are in violation of federal [statutes].

         ECF No. 1 at 6.[3]

         II DISCUSSION

         Madison complains that CACH could not bring its claim against him in Maryland because he was a Washington, D.C. resident at the time the action was filed. ECF No. 1 at 6. This recitation of the law is incomplete: under the FDCPA, any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall:

(1) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumer's obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district... in which such real property is located; or
(2) in the case of an action not described in paragraph (1), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity
(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or
(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.

15 U.S.C. ยง 16921. Madison does not indicate whether the debt involved property or a contract or where the property was located or the contract sued upon was signed, nor does he provide copies of any relevant agreements or contracts. To the extent that Madison wishes to proceed against Defendant CACH or its counsel on a FDCPA claim, he will be granted an opportunity to supplement his ...


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.