Seneca violated Plaintiff’s rights by sending debt collection mail to her home, making phone calls to Plaintiff’s personal phone and 13 Case 3:16-cv-02437-BRM-LHG Document 48 Filed 12/05/16 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 485 sending representatives to her house who placed notices on her front door. All of Seneca’s conduct occurred after it became affirmatively prohibited under 15 U.S.C. §1692c from contacting Plaintiff directly. This adds to the likelihood that a reasonable fact finder could determine Seneca’s conduct had the natural consequence to harass, oppress or abuse the plaintiff.

The record of Sutton demonstrates that BSI could have complied with 12 C.F.R. §1024.36 and 15 U.S.C. §1692c, but instead chose not too. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has gone beyond the minimum standard in setting forth facts together with proofs to allege that BSI has violated the Fair Debt collection Practices Act.

As such, Plaintiff has substantially failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff has failed to allege BSI has violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c, d, or e, BSI respectfully asks the Court to grant its motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against BSI. HILL WALLACK LLP Dated: December 12, 2016 /s/ Brett M. Buterick Michael J. Shavel, Esq.

As Peak, Durand, and Winters make clear, the consequences of a letter that was addressed to Plaintiff's counsel being opened by a third party in violation of federal law could not have been reasonably foreseen by Defendant, and thus Plaintiff's Complaint does not state a claim for a violation of either 15 U.S.C. § 1692b or § 1692c of the FDCPA. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has not pled sufficiently that either statute is applicable, this alleged letter was still not sent to a third party in a way that would violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) or § 1692b, as it was addressed to Plaintiff's attorney, a party specifically addressed in 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). Plaintiff makes no allegations "before the court that the Defendant attempted to communicate with a third party" about Plaintiff's debt.

Plaintiff allegation is Case 9:12-cv-80675-WJZ Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2013 Page 10 of 25 Page 11 of 25 essentially that by continuing the underlying State Court collection action against Mr. Pinson, the Sprechman Defendants violated 15 U.S.C § 1692c(c) by continuing to contact him through various pleadings filed by the Sprechman Defendants on behalf of its client, Midland Funding LLC. 15 U.S.C § 1692c(c) states as follows: (c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except -- (1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated; (2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or (3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.

The defendant has failed to respond to Affidavit filed on May 11 , 2017 and failed to obtain verification (a sworn statement attesting to the truth of the facts in a document) thus Plaintiff monition for summary judgment will be granted. Order, that Plaintiff monition for summary judgment is granted, it is Further ordered that the court declares defendant violated the Consumer Protection Laws enacted by Congress 15 U.S.C. §1692c(b)-805, 15 U.S.C. §1692c(c)-805, 15 U.S.C. §1692d(l), (2), (3)-806, 15 U.S.C. §1692e(l), (2, a, b), (3)-807, 15 U.S.C. §1692f(l)-808 and 15 U.S.C. §1692g-809 it is Further order that Plaintiff be compensated 8,000.00 (value) in actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(l) it is Further order that defendant is permanently enjoined from violating the consumer protection law, cease and desist communication, close the consumer asset account as defined 15 U.S.C. §1693a and not transfer/assign and/or sale consumer intellectual property it is Case 3:16-cv-00647-CRS Document 15-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 103 Further order that this court retains jurisdiction over any matters pertaining to this judgment; and it is Further order that this controversy is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk of Count shall remove it from the docket of the court, this is the final order; So order Date: June 1, 2017 /s/ ........ :-.............. : ..................................... . United States Dis

Finally, the FDCPA contains specific instructions on how to request that a debt collector cease communications. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), “if a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer… wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer…” (emphasis added). Trinidad has not sent any written communications asking that Pioneer cease communications.

An examination of the plain language § 1692c(c) reveals that it was not intended to prevent all communications with a consumer after the consumer refuses to pay a debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c). Had that been Congress’s intent, it would not have included the three enumerated exceptions in § 1692c(c)(1)-(3).

It is true that when a debt collector knows a consumer is represented about one debt, but has no knowledge that the consumer is represented regarding other debts, the collector may continue to contact the consumer about those other debts. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2); see also Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991). However, that defense does not apply to Medicredit.

(emphasis added)). 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). Bernard Carson’s February 8, 2014 letter to Ocwen, Gostebski Decl., Ex.