[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-275601-105":53,"doc-detail-275601-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","ghanta-v-immediate-credit-recovery-inc-order-on-summary-judgment","Ghanta v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. - Order on Summary Judgment","","A U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas grants Plaintiff Venkata Ghanta’s motion for summary judgment and denies the Defendant Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc.’s motion. The dispute concerns whether the Defendant complied with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when reinitiating collection after receiving a debt dispute, focusing on whether electronic correspondence and a CFPB-portal letter satisfied the debt verification mailing obligation. The court applies summary judgment standards and assesses the material factual disputes.",{"@graph":63,"@context":122},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/ghanta-v-immediate-credit-recovery-inc-order-on-summary-judgment/275601/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/ghanta-v-immediate-credit-recovery-inc-order-on-summary-judgment/275601.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Aladdin","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114,118],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What motions were before the court in this case?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The court considered both parties’ motions for summary judgment, along with supporting briefs and appendices, filed between February 16 and March 22, 2017.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why did the plaintiff sue the defendant?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The plaintiff alleged the defendant’s debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and sought damages.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What legal issue centered on the court’s decision?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Whether the defendant’s debt verification obligation was satisfied before reinitiating collection efforts, particularly in light of an electronic letter uploaded to the CFPB portal.",{"name":119,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the court resolve the summary judgment motions?",{"text":121,"@type":109},"Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":124,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":56},275601,1790768474,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":35,"language":139,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},2336478503145,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Case 3:16-cv-00573-O Document 48 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID 723  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS  \nDALLAS DIVISION  \nVENKATA GHANTA, Plaintiff,  \nv.  \nIMMEDIATE CREDIT  \nRECOVERY, INC., Defendant.  \n§§  \n§§  \n§§  \n§§  \n§§  \nCivil Action No. 3:16-cv-00573-O  \nORDER  \nBefore the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) and Brief and Appendix in Support (ECF Nos. 32–33), filed February 16, 2017; Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 40), filed March 8, 2017; and Plaintiff’s Reply (ECF No. 41), filed March 22, 2017. Also before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) and Brief and Appendix in Support (ECF Nos. 35–36), filed February 16, 2017; Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 39), filed March 8, 2017; and Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 42), filed March 22, 2017. Having considered the motion, related briefing, and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) should be and is hereby GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) should be and is hereby DENIED.  \nI. BACKGROUND  \nThis action arises from the debt collection practices of Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc.(“Defendant”) against Mr. Venkata Ghanta (“Plaintiff”), which Plaintiff claims violated the Fair  \nCase 3:16-cv-00573-O Document 48 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID 724  \nDebt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and for which Plaintiff now seeks damages. Pl.’s Compl. 4–5, ECF No. 1. Emory University hired Defendant to collect putative tuition expenses [allegedly owed by Plaintiff.](allegedly owed by Plaintiff. Id. at 2. Defendant)[ Id.](allegedly owed by Plaintiff. Id. at 2. Defendant)[ at 2. Defendant](allegedly owed by Plaintiff. Id. at 2. Defendant) sent initial correspondence to Plaintiff on June 11, 2015, informing Plaintiff that:  \nUnless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment  \nand mail you a copy of such judgment or verification.  \n[Id.](Id. at 3)[ at 3](Id. at 3) (emphasis added). In response, Plaintiff emailed correspondence to Defendant on June 22, 2015, [disputing the debt.](disputing the debt. Id. at 3)[ Id.](disputing the debt. Id. at 3)[ at 3](disputing the debt. Id. at 3)–4; Def.’s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Br.”) 4, ECF No. 35. Plaintiff sent a second request for debt verification to Defendant via the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) online portal on November 9, 2015. Def.’s Br. 4, ECF No. 35. Defendant uploaded a letter to the CFPB portal on November 9, 2015, stating that its client, Emory University, indicated Plaintiff “does in fact owe the balance” and “is responsible for th [e] bill.”Def.’s App., Ex. B., ECF No. 35-1.  \nDefendant reinitiated collection efforts against Plaintiff by sending a collection letter on December 14, 2015. Pl.’s Compl. 4, ECF No. 1; Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. 6, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff claims that the December letter violates the FDCPA because Defendant failed to mail him verification of the debt before reinitiating collection efforts. Id. at ¶ 28. Defendant argues that the letter electronically uploaded to the CFPB portal (the “portal letter”) constitutes sufficient debt verification, rendering the subsequent collection efforts lawful. Def.’s Br. 5, ECF No. 35. But Plaintiff claims the portal letter is insufficient to satisfy Defendant’s debt verification obligation  \nCase 3:16-cv-00573-O Document 48 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID 725  \nbecause it (1) was not mailed to Plaintiff, and (2) does not contain enough information to allow him to sufficiently dispute the debt. Pl.’s Resp. 6–8, ECF No. 39. Both partie","cbCairyxwEV2ymXK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCairyxwEV2ymXK","pdf",384115,"English","# Background\n# Legal Standards\n## Summary Judgment\n## Fair Debt Collection Practices Act","[{\"question\":\"What motions were before the court in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The court considered both parties’ motions for summary judgment, along with supporting briefs and appendices, filed between February 16 and March 22, 2017.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the plaintiff sue the defendant?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiff alleged the defendant’s debt collection practices violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and sought damages.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal issue centered on the court’s decision?\",\"answer\":\"Whether the defendant’s debt verification obligation was satisfied before reinitiating collection efforts, particularly in light of an electronic letter uploaded to the CFPB portal.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court resolve the summary judgment motions?\",\"answer\":\"Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied.\"}]","Ghanta v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. - Order on Summary Judgment | PDF",1789488485,6]