Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Deanda v. GC Services, L.P.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 22, 2014

RENE DEANDA, Plaintiff,
GC SERVICES, L.P., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.


KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge.

This case comes before the court on "Defendant GC Services, L.P.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56" (Doc. No. 23 [Mot.], filed January 23, 2014), to which Plaintiff filed her response on February 24, 2014 (Doc. No. 29 [Resp.]) and Defendant filed its reply on March 6, 2014 (Doc. No. 30 [Reply]). This motion is ripe for ruling.


Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 18, 2013 alleging Defendants' repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). (Doc. No. 1 [Compl.], ¶ 1.) Plaintiff, alleges she is a "consumer" pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) and she incurred a financial obligation in the approximate amount of $780.00 ("the Debt") to an original creditor ("the Creditor"). ( Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges the Debt was purchased, assigned to or transferred to Defendant GC Services, L.P., which operates as a collection agency, for collection. ( Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant attempted to collect the Debt, and engaged in "communications as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2.) ( Id., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges on or around October 2012, Defendant contacted Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Debt. ( Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges on or about January 2, 2013, Plaintiff instructed Defendant not to call her at work, but on January 9, 2013, Defendant placed an additional call to her at her place of employment. ( Id., ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff asserts claims that the defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(3) because Defendant contacted Plaintiff at her place of employment, knowing that the Plaintiff's employer prohibited such communications.[1] ( Id., ¶ 19.)


Summary judgment is appropriate if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). "Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter." Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the pleadings, but must instead designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A disputed fact is "material" if "under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim." Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir.1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A dispute is "genuine" if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Thomas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court may consider only admissible evidence. See Johnson v. Weld County, Colo., 594 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 2010). The factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1517. At the summary judgment stage of litigation, a plaintiff's version of the facts must find support in the record. Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir. 2009). "When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Thomson, 584 F.3d at 1312.


Following are the relevant undisputed facts as agreed to by the parties ( see Mot. at 2-5; Resp. at 5):

1. Defendant was attempting to collect a delinquent financial obligation related to a Credit One Bank Account (the "Account"). (Mot., Ex. A, Deposition of Plaintiff, p. 45, ll. 16-25; Ex. B, Aff. of Paul Grover, ¶ 5; Ex. D, Account Notes.)

2. The Account was assigned to Defendant on November 14, 2012. (Ex. B, ¶ 5.)

3. Upon assignment of the Account, the creditor provided Defendant with a primary telephone number of: (303) 458-4933. (Ex. B, ¶ 6; Ex. D, (top of page 1).)

4. Plaintiff believes she owes the Account. (Ex. A, p. 47, ll. 2-17.)

5. Defendant called (303) 458-4933 and spoke to Plaintiff on November 14, 2012, November 19, 2012, November 27, 2012, and ...

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.