COMBE v. GOODMAN FROST, P.L.L.C.

Case No. 2:16-cv-12857.

CHARLES D. COMBE, Plaintiff, v. GOODMAN FROST, P.L.L.C., ROBERT J. GOODMAN, TIMOTHY J. FROST and CORPORATE DOE-1, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles D. Combe, Plaintiff, represented by John Evanchek .

Charles D. Combe, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis C. Warner , Warner Law Firm, LLC.

Goodman Frost, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson , Olson Law Group & Timothy B. Myers , Olson Law Group.

Robert J. Goodman, Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson , Olson Law Group & Timothy B. Myers , Olson Law Group.

Timothy J. Frost, Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson , Olson Law Group & Timothy B. Myers , Olson Law Group.


ORDER DEEMING RESOLVED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DE 18)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by: (a) attempting to collect a debt discharged in bankruptcy, (b) sending a form collection letter that made it appear that there was meaningful attorney involvement in the drafting of the letter, and (c) attempting to collect impermissible amounts not owed. (DE 1 ¶¶ 3, 35-58.) Defendants filed a combined answer, which includes an affirmative defense that "without admitting liability, . . . if Defendants' conduct violated the law, such conduct was the result of an unintentional, bona fide-error that occurred despite the maintenance of procedures reasonable adapted to avoid such violations." (DE 9 at 8 ¶ 5 (emphasis added).)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, regarding which a response, reply, and statement of unresolved issues have been filed. (DEs 18, 24, 26, 27.) Judge Friedman referred this motion to me for hearing and determination, and a hearing was noticed for February 7, 2016. (DEs 19, 25.) On the date set for hearing, attorneys John Evanchek and Charity A. Olsen appeared. Although Plaintiff's December 12, 2016 motion originally sought relief as to (a) Interrogatories Nos. 3, 13 and 14, (b) a verification page for the Interrogatories, and (c) the Lexis records and Experian credit report they obtained that relates to Plaintiff (DE 18 at 3), Plaintiff's counsel clarified, consistent with the January 17, 2017 statement of unresolved issues (DE 27), that all issues other than those concerning Interrogatories 13 and 14 had been resolved.

Having considered the motion, the response, the reply, the statement of unresolved issues and oral argument, the motion is DEEMED RESOLVED as to Interrogatories 3, the verification page, and the Lexis records and Experian credit report. Moreover, the motion is DEEMED RESOLVED as to Interrogatories 13 and 14, pursuant to the stipulations placed on the record. Counsel are to submit a stipulated order memorializing these stipulations no later than February 14, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases