Cascade Capital, LLC et al v. DRS Processing LLC
Filing
16
ORDER granting 13 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court awards Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief as described in detail in the Order. As to Plaintiffs monetary damages, the Court reserves such questions until Defendant has produced the required information and a future evidentiary hearing may be held. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/5/2018. (eef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00470-RJC-DSC
CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC and
CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC –
SERIES A,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DRS PROCESSING LLC d/b/a
)
MILLER STARK KLEIN &
)
ASSOCIATES
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Cascade Capital, LLC’s and Cascade Capital,
LLC-Series A’s (“Plaintiffs’”) Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 13), and their
Memorandum in Support, (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiffs’ Motion is now ripe and ready for adjudication.
I.
BACKGROUND
a. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 8, 2017, (Doc. No. 1), and Defendant was served
on August 18, 2017 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, (Doc. No. 5). On August 24,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, (Doc. No. 6), and a Memorandum
in Support, (Doc. No. 7). On September 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default,
(Doc. No. 11), which was granted by the Clerk’s office on September 20, 2017, (Doc. No. 12). On
November 1, 2017, Plaintiffs Motioned for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 13). Defendants have
yet to appear or submit a document before the Court.
A hearing regarding this matter was held on November 8, 2017, where the Court heard
Plaintiffs’ arguments in support of their Motion of Default Judgment and their requested injunctive
relief. The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not give Defendant notice of this hearing, nor were they
required to. Defendant has not appeared personally in front of this Court since they were served
by Plaintiffs. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2) (“If the party against whom a default judgment is sought
has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with
written notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing.”) (emphasis added).
b. Factual Background
Plaintiffs’ business involves the purchase of consumer accounts. (Doc. No. 14 at 1). Once
Plaintiffs purchases an account, they either place it with third party agencies for collection or sell
portions of the account to third party purchasers. (Id.). Among others, Plaintiffs have developed
a purchase relationship with Santander Consumer USA (“Santander”). (Id.). Santander’s practice
involves selling accounts by transmitting portfolios to potential buyers who then evaluate the
portfolio prior to purchasing the account. (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs believe that Santander requires all
potential buyers to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to receive these portfolios. (Id.).
Around July 25, 2014 and June 9, 2015, Plaintiffs purchased automobile portfolios and
accounts from Santander. (Id.). These portfolios contain more than 200,000 consumer accounts.
(Id. at 16). Plaintiffs have documentation of each account’s full chain of title. (Id. at 2). Other
parties expressed interest in these automobile accounts and viewed their portfolios after signing a
non-disclosure agreement. Ultimately, however, Plaintiff Cascade Capital, LLC was the sole
buyer who received title. (Id. at 2). Cascade Capital, LLC thereafter transferred the legal title of
some of these automobile accounts to its series limited liability companies, such as Cascade
Capital-Series A. (Id.). Neither Plaintiffs nor Santander transferred title to the automobile
accounts to Defendant. (Id.).
Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant either: (1) directly obtained information related to
accounts within the Santander Portfolios; or (2) accounts within the Santander Portfolios were
placed with Defendant for collection by a third party other than Cascade.” (Id.). Through either
means, Plaintiffs became aware that Defendant began to collect on these automobile accounts in
February of 2017. (Id. at 3). Defendant’s communications to consumers stated that Defendant—
not Plaintiffs—had the legal title and the right to collect on the account’s balance. One such
communication stated:
Miller Stark Klein and Associates purchased this account with the
legal right to collect, settle or close for the amount noted above . . .
Once the settlement is completed and final payment posts the
balance is considered paid in full and no further legal obligation is
owed. You will have a paid account with a (-0-) zero balance. This
letter will serve notice to all parties directly or indirectly involved
that any attempts to contact this consumer or to collect on this
arrangement after receipt of this letter is considered illegal and
harassment under the guidelines set forth by the F.D.C.P.A.
(Doc. No. 14 at 4).
Affected customers notified both Plaintiffs and Santander about Defendant’s collections.
(Id.). While Plaintiffs remain unaware of the total number of consumers contacted by Defendant,
they found that at least 72 accounts were contacted and that this number has grown since the filing
of this action. (Id.). Those 72 known accounts have an aggregate balance of $511,210.88 and
Plaintiffs believe approximately $27,000.00 has been paid to Defendant. (Id. at 6).
Prior to filing their complaint, Plaintiffs made efforts to reach out to Defendant in the hopes
of ending their collection on the Santander accounts. (Id.). Those efforts, however, were in vain.
Defendant continues to contact Plaintiffs’ automobile accounts and assert false representations,
such as telling consumers that: “(1) the accounts were rightfully assigned to Defendant and/or that
Defendant has been engaged to resolve the delinquent debt; (2) Defendant has the right to collect
upon the account; and (3) payment to Defendant would operate as cease and desist to any other
agency as well as the original creditor that the matter was paid in full as agreed and act as a cease
and desist in the action.” (Id. at 4).
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Upon the entry of default, the defaulted party is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded
allegations of fact contained in the complaint. Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778,
780 (4th Cir. 2001); Weft, Inc. v. GC Inv. Assocs., 630 F. Supp. 1138, 1141 (E.D.N.C. 1986)
(citations omitted); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 8(b)(6) (“An allegation - other than one relating to the
amount of damages - is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not
denied.”). However, the defendant is not deemed to have admitted conclusions of law and the
entry of “default is not treated as an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the
plaintiff’s right to recover.” Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780 (citations omitted); see also E.E.O.C. v. Carter
Behavior Health Servs., Inc., No. 4:09-cv-122-F, 2011 WL 5325485, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7,
2011). Rather, in determining whether to enter judgment on the default, the court must determine
whether the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint support the relief sought. See Ryan, 253
F.3d at 780 (citing Weft, 630 F. Supp. at 1141); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pernites, 200 F. App’x 257,
258 (4th Cir. 2006) (a “defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit
conclusions of law“) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206
(5th Cir. 1975)); Arista Records, LLC v. Gaines, 635 F. Supp. 2d 414, 416 (E.D.N.C. 2009); 10A
WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND
PROCEDURE § 2688 (3d ed. Supp. 2010)
(“[L]iability is not deemed established simply because of the default . . . and the court, in its
discretion, may require some proof of the facts that must be established in order to determine
liability.”).
To that end, the Fourth Circuit has “repeatedly expressed a strong preference that, as a
general matter, defaults be avoided and that claims and defenses be disposed of on their merits.”
Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Univ., Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (citations
omitted). Nonetheless, default judgment “may be appropriate when the adversary process has been
halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” SEC v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418, 421
(D. Md. 2005).
If the court finds that liability is established, it must then determine damages. Carter
Behavior Health, 2011 WL 5325485, at *4 (citing Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780-81; Gaines, 635 F. Supp.
2d at 416-17). The court must make an independent determination regarding damages, and cannot
accept as true factual allegations of damages. Id. (citing Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 422).
While the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine damages, it is not required to do
so, but may rely instead on affidavits or documentary evidence in the record to determine the
appropriate sum. See EEOC v. CDG Mgmt., LLC, No. RDB-08-2562, 2010 WL 4904440, at *2
(D. Md. Nov. 24, 2010) (citations omitted); EEOC v. North Am. Land Corp., No. 1:08-cv-501,
2010 WL 2723727, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2010).
III.
DISCUSSION
“Decisions are made by those who show up.” President Bartlet, The West Wing: What
Kind of Day Has it Been? (NBC television broadcast May 17, 2000). Defendant has yet to appear
before this Court or respond to Plaintiffs’ motions. They have yet to “show up” and, as a result,
have halted the adversarial process. Appropriately, Plaintiffs now seek default judgment as to their
three claims for relief within their initial complaint. (Doc. No. 13). Those claims include: (1)
tortious interference; (2) unjust enrichment and money had and received; and (3) unfair and
deceptive trade practices. (Doc. No. 1 at 8–11). In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from communicating with, or collecting from, Plaintiff’s
consumers. (Id. At 11–14). The Court will first determine whether Plaintiffs’ well pleaded facts
support their claims. After that, the Court will then assess Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
A. Tortious Interference
The elements for tortious interference are:
(1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third person which
confers upon the plaintiff a contractual right against a third
person;
(2) the defendant knows of the contract;
(3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to
perform the contract;
(4) and in doing so acts without justification;
(5) resulting in actual damage to plaintiff.
Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Bev. Repair, LLC, 784 S.E.2d 457, 462
(N.C. 2016). To meet these elements, Plaintiffs argue that they legally acquired each account
within the portfolios from Santander. (Doc. No. 14 at 8). Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that they
have valid contracts with each consumer connected to the Santander accounts. (Id.). Because
Plaintiffs had previously contacted Defendant in an attempt to prevent further collection of the
Santander automobile accounts, Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant knew that Plaintiffs were
the rightful owner of those accounts. (Id,). Even with this knowledge, Plaintiffs assert that
Defendant intentionally induced the consumers of those accounts to pay Defendant rather than
perform their contract with Plaintiff. (Id.). As a result of this intentional conduct, Plaintiffs claim
damages no less than $511,210.88—the aggregate balance of the accounts identified thus far. (Id.
at 9).
Upon review, this Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint sufficiently alleges
Defendant’s liability under tortious interference. In support of their allegations, Plaintiffs present
the affidavit of one Ashley Beasley who identifies the 72 known accounts affected by Defendant’s
actions. (Id.). While Plaintiffs can still collect on their consumers’ accounts, they allege injury by
way of marketplace confusion, consumers’ failure to make payments, and damaged business
relationships. (Id. at 9).
B. Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received
In order to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must establish: “(1) a
measurable benefit was conferred on the defendant, (2) the defendant consciously accepted that
benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred officiously or gratuitously." Lake Toxaway Cmty.
Ass'n v. RYF Enters., LLC, 742 S.E.2d 555, 561 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Primerica Life Ins.
Co. v. James Massengill & Sons Constr. Co., 712 S.E.2d 670, 677 (N.C. App. Ct. 2011); JPMorgan
Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Browning, 750 S.E.2d 555, 559 (N.C. App. Ct. 2013). Within the
realm of unjust enrichment, Plaintiff also brings an action for money had and received. Such an
action “may be maintained as a general rule whenever the defendant has money in his hands which
belongs to the plaintiff, and which in equity and good conscience he ought to pay to the plaintiff."
Primerica Life Ins. Co., 712 S.E.2d at 676-77 (quoting Allgood v. Wilmington Sav. & Trust Co.,
88 S.E.2d 825, 829 (N.C. 1955)). Money had and received therefore allows recovery based upon
the well-established equitable principle that “a person should not be permitted to enrich himself
unjustly at the expense of another.” Id. (quoting Allgood, 88 S.E.2d at 829). Accordingly, the
leading inquiry is not whether the defendant obtained the money honestly or in good faith. Id.
Rather, the question becomes “to which party does the money, in equity and good conscience,
belong?” Id.
Starting with unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs support their claim by arguing that Defendant
accepted a benefit by collecting upon Plaintiffs’ accounts “which [were] not conferred officiously
or gratuitously by” Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 14 at 10). Plaintiffs also assert that the resulting benefit
is measurable. Simply determine the accounts Defendant collected upon. (Id.). Similarly, to
support their claims for money had and received, Plaintiffs argue that “Defendant is in the
possession of money which belongs to Cascade, and in equity and good conscience Defendant
must be required to pay to Cascade.” (Id.).
Upon review, this Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint sufficiently alleges
Defendant’s liability under unjust enrichment and money had and received. Plaintiffs maintained
valid contracts with consumers. Defendant collected on the accounts connected to those contracts
despite having neither title nor right to do so. As a result, Defendants hold in their possession
funds that Plaintiffs were rightly entitled to.
C. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Unfair and deceptive trade practices are governed by the Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (“UDTPA”). N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1, et seq. “The elements of a claim for unfair
and deceptive practices are: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of
competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the
plaintiff or to his business.” Furr v. Fonville Morisey Realty, Inc., 130 N.C. App. 541, 503 S.E.2d
401 (1998), cert. dismissed, 351 N.C. 41, 519 S.E.2d 314 (1999). Notably, this cause of action is
applicable to tortious interference contract situations. United Labs., Inc v. Kuykendall, 370 S.E.2d
375, 389 (N.C. 1988) (noting that UDTPA actions have not been limited to cases involving
consumers only, but also include cases involving solely businesses, which affect consumers as
well).
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s collection of their accounts with knowledge of those
accounts’ true ownership constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. (Doc. No. 14 at 11).
These acts were in commerce, Plaintiffs argue, because they adversely affected Plaintiffs’ business
of purchasing and collecting from consumer accounts. (Id. at 12). Furthermore, actual injury
resulted because third parties made payments to Defendants, thus negatively impacting Plaintiffs’
business relationships and causing confusion in the marketplace. (Id.).
After alleging a violation of the UDTPA, Plaintiffs cite the act’s provision allowing treble
damages. (Id.). N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-16 provides:
If any person shall be injured or the business of any person, firm or
corporation shall be . . . injured by reason of any act or thing done
by any other person, firm or corporation in violation of the
provisions of [the UDTPA], such person, firm or corporation so
injured shall have a right of action on account of such injury done,
and if damages are assessed in such case judgment shall be rendered
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for treble the
amount fixed by the verdict.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-16 (2017). Because they were injured by an “act or thing done” in violation
of the UDTPA—deceiving consumers to collect from their accounts—Plaintiffs argue that they
are entitled to treble damages. (Doc. No. 14 at 12–13). Plaintiffs also cites N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7516.1, which provides this Court the discretion to award attorneys fees to the prevailing party
alleging a violation of the UDTPA. (Id. at 13). In order to receive attorney fees, this Court must
find that:
(1) The party charged with the violation has willfully engaged in
the act or practice, and there was an unwarranted refusal by
such party to fully resolve the matter which constitutes the basis
of such suit; or
(2) The party instituting the action knew, or should have known,
the action was frivolous and malicious.
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-16.1 (2017). Plaintiffs again argue that Defendant intentionally pursued
Plaintiffs’ accounts despite warnings that their actions were unlawful. (Doc. No. 14 at 13).
Upon review, this Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint sufficiently alleges
Defendant’s liability under the UDTPA. Under Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendant engaged in
deceptive conduct in commerce by misleading Plaintiffs’ consumers into believing that their debts
were payable to Defendant. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages and attorneys fees.
D. Monetary Damages
After establishing liability during a motion for default, the Court must then independently
determine damages. Carter Behavior Health, 2011 WL 5325485, at *4 (citing Ryan, 253 F.3d at
780-81; Gaines, 635 F. Supp. 2d at 416-17). Plaintiffs, however, request this Court to reserve the
issue of damages because, without more information from Defendant, the current scope of harm
remains unknown. (Doc. No. 13 at 5). While Plaintiffs know that Defendant contacted 72
accounts, they remain unaware as to the total extent of accounts contacted, not to mention the total
amount Defendant collected. (Id. At 9). In accordance to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a future hearing is necessary to fully
determine the scope of monetary damages available for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B). The
Court therefore reserves the issue of monetary damages until such time an evidentiary hearing may
be held.
E. Injunctive relief
Given that the Court must delay its determination of monetary damages, it now assesses
Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs not only request a permanent injunction to enjoin
Defendant from communicating with Plaintiffs’ consumers or collecting any Santander Accounts,
they also request this Court to compel Defendant to produce documents needed to determine the
appropriate monetary damages.
In order to receive relief in the form of a permanent injunction, “[a] plaintiff must
demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such
as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the
balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4)
that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”
eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). In accordance to the above elements, Plaintiffs
allege that they are permanently injured because Defendant continues to interfere with their legal
right to over 200,000 consumer accounts. (Doc. No. 14 at 14). Plaintiffs further allege that no
other remedy at law adequately addresses this permanent injury because Defendants have cast
uncertainty and confusion in the market place by “driv[ing] a wedge between a consumer and
Cascade’s ownership in the accounts.” (Id.). To that point, monetary remedies remain insufficient
in Plaintiffs’ view because Defendant remains uncooperative in aiding Plaintiffs’ efforts to
ascertain the extent of accounts communicated with and ultimately collected from. (Id.). Plaintiffs
also argue that, absent injunctive relief, Defendants will continue their practice of contacting the
Santander accounts Plaintiff purchased. (Id.).
As to the third element for receiving a permanent injunction, Plaintiffs allege that the
balance of hardships weight in their favor. Rather than requiring Plaintiffs to comb through
200,000 accounts, Defendant would merely refrain from contacting and collecting on accounts
they were never entitled to. (Id. at 15). Plaintiffs also argue that injunctive relief from Defendant’s
conduct would benefit the public interest by recognizing the rightful ownership of accounts and
preventing illegal misrepresentations and collections. (Id.).
This Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendant’s alleged conduct warrants injunctive relief.
Defendant continues to collect from accounts despite Plaintiff’s warning that such conduct is
unlawful. As such, even in the wake of monetary relief, Defendant’s deceptive collection of
consumer accounts must end. Furthermore, Defendants alone hold the information necessary to
determine the full scope of Plaintiffs’ injury. As mentioned above, the Court requires that
information in order to hold a hearing and determine Plaintiffs’ monetary damages. Without such
information, Defendants effectively block Plaintiffs from the damages they are entitled to.
Therefore, the Court hereby grants as Plaintiffs’ relief a permanent injunction to enjoin Defendant
from:
1. Communication. Defendants are enjoined from further communicating with any
consumer regarding accounts within the Santander Portfolio.
2. Collection. Defendants are enjoined from collecting or attempting to collect on
accounts from the Santander portfolio.
Additionally, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendant to produce:
1. Specific Santander Accounts. Defendants must produce reports identifying all
Santander accounts Defendant has acquired or collected on in the past 24 months.
a. These reports should identify each consumer with the following: (1) their last
name; (2) the last four digits of their social security number; and (3) their
corresponding Santander account number
2. Related Documents. Defendants must produce all documents related to their
purchase of the Santander Accounts within the past 24 months.
a. These documents include, but are not limited to, correspondence, bills of sale,
and purchase documents.
3. Collection Documents. Defendants must produce all records of their collection
activities in respect to Santander Portfolio accounts.
a. These records include, but are not limited to, notes, correspondence, and
recordings of any calls with consumers.
4. Third Party Referrals. Defendants must produce the identity of any third party, if
any, who referred Santander accounts to Defendant for collection.
5. Santander Account Sellers. Defendants must produce the identity of any person or
entity that sold Santander accounts to Defendant by way of name, address, email,
telephone, and website.
6. Copies of Santander Account Agreements. Defendants must produce copies of each
and every purchase or forwarding agreements for all Santander accounts identified.
7. Accounting. Defendant must make an accounting of all monies collected from any
of the Santander accounts.
a. This accounting must include monies collected by Defendant or their employees,
contractors, affiliates, members, designees, owners, clients, or any other third
party entity acting in concert with Defendant.
The Court defines “Santander Accounts” and “Santander Portfolios” as those accounts and
portfolios originally purchased by Plaintiffs from Santander which Defendant has obtained,
communicated with, or collected from. Defendant has 30 days to provide Plaintiffs the documents
listed above. Afterward, an evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiff’s monetary damages will then
be scheduled.
IV.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc.
No. 13), is GRANTED. The Court awards Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief as described in
detail above. As to Plaintiff’s monetary damages, the Court reserves such questions until
Defendant has produced the required information and a future evidentiary hearing may be held.
Signed: January 5, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?