Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1. Arc’s defense is that they are exempt from being governed by the FDCPA – and the case
should be dismissed. However, FDCPA has changed throughout the years, and I have
assumed that Samantha’s attorney researched the fact that the definition of “debt
collector” has changed and under circumstances – attorneys are can be defined as debt
collectors which requires them to comply with the FDCPA. I think Samantha and her
attorney have a stronger argument. I am also assuming Samantha’s attorney did his/her
due diligence and researched the sections of the FDCPA and did not file a frivolous lawsuit.
2. If I was a juror on this case…I would weigh all the testimony and evidence presented by both
sides. Samantha, the plaintiff, and with her attorney suing the Arc’s debt collecting
attorneys need to prove their case. If Samantha and her attorney, provide solid evidence
and witness testimony that the defendants harassed her at work, abused her with phone
calls at all hours, threatened her, and used intimidating tactics to collect the debt owed Arc
– and more importantly – show that defendants in fact were acting as debt collectors and
required to comply under the FDCPA - I would find it in Samantha’s favor.
3. I believe in all things being equal under the eyes of the law – so if a person who went to law
school, passed the state bar exam and holds a license to practice law should be capable of
following the rules and regulations in the FDCPA – the same as a non-attorney debt collector
– and therefore not be exempt from being governed by the FDCPA.
