Chaney v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00892

ANSWER to [1] Complaint by Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TINA M. CHANEY, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 5:19-cv-00892-DAE § DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., § § Defendant. § DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT Defendant, Diversified Consultants, Inc. ("DCI"), through counsel and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, responds to the Complaint filed by plaintiff, Tina M. Chaney ("plaintiff"), and states: 1. The FDCPA speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content. To the extent the allegations in ¶ 1 state otherwise, denied. Further, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 1 to the extent they call for legal conclusions. 2. The FDCPA and Texas Finance Code speak for themselves and are the best evidences of their content. To the extent the allegations in ¶ 2 state otherwise, denied. Further, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 2 to the extent they call for legal conclusions. 3. DCI admits plaintiff filed this action for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Texas Finance Code, but denies any violations, liability or wrongdoing under the law. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 3. 1 4. Upon information and belief, DCI does not dispute that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 4. 5. Upon information and belief, DCI does not contest that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 5. 6. Upon information and belief, DCI does not contest that venue is proper in this Court on this civil action. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 6. 7. Upon information and belief, DCI admits that plaintiff is a natural person who resides or resided for a time in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 7. 8. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 8 but does not contest service of process in this matter. 9. DCI admits that a segment of its business involves the collection of defaulted debts and that it uses the mail and internet in its business. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 9. 10. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 10 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 11. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 11 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 2 12. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 12 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 13. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 12 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 14. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 14 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 15. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 15 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 16. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 16 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. Further answering, DCI states, however, that AT&T placed an account standing in Plaintiff's name with it for collection. 17. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 17 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 18. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 18 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 19. DCI admits the allegations in ¶ 19 that AT&T placed an account standing in Plaintiff's name with it for collection. DCI denies all remaining allegations in ¶ 19 for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief therein. 20. DCI admits the allegations in ¶ 20 that it sent Plaintiff a letter, which as a written document is the best evidence of its terms and speaks for itself, and that it credit 3 reported the account placed with it for collection as disputed by Plaintiff. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 20. 21. DCI admits the allegations in ¶ 21 that a person identifying herself as Plaintiff orally disputed the debt by telephone. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 21. 22. DCI admits the allegations in ¶ 22 that it sent Plaintiff a letter, which as a written document is the best evidence of its terms and speaks for itself. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations concerning the letter differ from the complete and express terms of the letter, DCI denies the allegations. DCI also admits that from the time it first credit reported the account in question, it reported the account as disputed by Plaintiff. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 22. 23. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 23. 24. DCI admits that Plaintiff paid the debt in question. Except as specifically admitted, DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 24. 25. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 25 as calling for a legal conclusion. 26. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 26 as calling for a legal conclusion. 27. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 27 as calling for a legal conclusion. 28. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 28 as calling for a legal conclusion. 29. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 29, including denying the allegations in all of its subparts a-d. 30. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 30 as calling for a legal conclusion. 31. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 31 as calling for a legal conclusion. 4 32. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 32 as calling for a legal conclusion. 33. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 33 as calling for a legal conclusion. 34. DCI denies the allegations in ¶ 34, including denying the allegations in all of its subparts a-c. 35. DCI admits plaintiff has demanded a jury trial but denies any violations, liability, or wrongdoing under the law. DCI'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. To the extent that any violations are established, any such violations were not intentional and resulted from bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted and specifically intended to avoid any such error. 2. DCI denies any liability; however, regardless of liability, plaintiff has suffered no actual damages as a result of DCI's purported violations. 3. One or more claims asserted by plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, waiver and/or unclean hands. 4. If plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied, she has failed to mitigate her damages or take other reasonable steps to avoid or reduce her damages. 5. Any harm suffered by plaintiff was legally and proximately caused by persons or entities other than DCI and were beyond the control or supervision of DCI or for whom DCI was and is not responsible or liable. 6. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against DCI upon which relief may be granted. 5 WHEREFORE, Defendant, Diversified Consultants, Inc., requests the Court dismiss this action with prejudice and grant it any other relief the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Charles R. Penot, Jr. Charles R. Penot, Jr. TX Bar No. 24062455 Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC 900 Jackson Street, Suite 440 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 741-3009 Facsimile: (214) 741-3098 Email: cpenot@sessions.legal Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 9, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and served via CM/ECF upon the following: William M. Clanton Law Office of Bill Clanton, P.C. 926 Chulie Drive San Antonio, Texas 78216 Telephone: (210) 226-0800 Facsimile: (210) 338-8660 Email: bill@clantonlawoffice.com /s/ Charles R. Penot, Jr. Charles R. Penot, Jr. 6