Belin v. Litton Loan

[David A. Szwak]

Belin v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1992410
M.D.Fla.,2006.
Jul 14, 2006
****
A. Defendants Other than Litton
Defendants argue that the claims against the general partner defendants and the "John and Jane Smith" employee defendants should be dismissed, because Plaintiffs only allege collection activity by Litton. The Court rejects this argument.
With regards to the general partner defendants, general partners of a debt collector limited partnership may be held vicariously liable for the partnership's conduct under the FDCPA. [FN1] See Police v. National Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 405 (3d Cir.2000); Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, and Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.2000); Peters v. AT & T Corp., 43 F.Supp.2d 926, 930 (N.D.Ill.1999). With regards to the "John and Jane Smith" employee defendants, employees of a debt collector may be jointly and severally liable with the debt collector. See Gottlieb v. Green Oil, Inc., 1998 WL 469849, at *3 (S.D.Fla. May 8, 1998); Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery Inc., 851 F.Supp. 61, 67 (E.D.N.Y.1994). While Plaintiffs do not allege specific conduct by the "John and Jane Smith" defendants, for the purpose of this motion, the Court presumes that these defendants were actually involved in the challenged communications, since Litton could only act through its agents or employees. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' motion on this issue.

FN1. Litton is a Delaware limited partnership. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 7). Under Delaware law, general partners are vicariously liable for the acts of the limited partnership, including violations of the FDCPA. Peters, 43. F.Supp.2d at 930.