Dana CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; David Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
Argued: Oct. 30, 2013.
Deepak Gupta, Gupta Beck, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Sean T. Partrick, Yates, McLamb & WeyheR, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Craig M. Shapiro, Keogh Law, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois; Joseph A. Bledsoe, The Bledsoe Law Firm, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Gregory A. Beck, Jonathan E. Taylor, Gupta Beck, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Jennifer D. Maldonado, William T. Kesler, Jr., Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and Joseph F. ANDERSON, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Vacated and remanded by published PER CURIAM opinion.
This case involves a putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Dana Clark and David Clark (" the Clarks" ) sued Absolute Collection Service,
Inc. (" ACS" ), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for its actions in attempting to collect a debt. The Clarks alleged that ACS's collection notice violated section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA by stating that debtors only could dispute the validity of their debt in writing. ACS moved to dismiss the Clarks' lawsuit, contending that the collection notice complied with the FDCPA because section 1692g(a)(3) contains an inherent writing requirement. The district court granted the motion, and the ...