Baxter v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Plaintiff: WAYNE BAXTER
Defendant: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Case Number: 8:2021cv02676
Filed: November 12, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Virginia M Hernandez Covington
Referring Judge: Anthony E Porcelli
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 7, 2022 Filing 13 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Count II of the Complaint by Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Rothschild, Philip)
December 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ENDORSED ORDER: Granting Defendant's Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. # 11). Defendant's response to the Complaint is due January 7, 2022. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/28/2021. (CTL)
December 27, 2021 Filing 11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint from Dec. 28 to Jan. 7 by Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Rothschild, Philip)
December 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ENDORSED ORDER: In this matter, the Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") due to the Defendant's practice of sharing consumers' personal information with a third-party vendor in pursuit of the collection of a debt. It has come to the Court's attention that, on November 17, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its panel decision in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., ___ F.4th ___, 2021 WL 4998980, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2021), and ordered that the case be reheard en banc. See Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 19-14434 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2021). The panel decision in Hunstein held that an alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b) is sufficient to give rise to the concrete injury in fact required for Article III standing, and that a debt collector's transmittal of a consumer's personal information to a third-party dunning vendor was made "in connection with the collection of any debt," in violation of the FDCPA. As that panel decision has now been vacated, it has no precedential value. Accordingly, the parties are directed to file a notice by January 11, 2022, stating whether they believe this matter should be stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in Hunstein. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/23/2021. (SGM)
December 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ENDORSED ORDER granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #8). Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc.'s response to the complaint is now due by December 28, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/15/2021. (SGM)
December 14, 2021 Filing 8 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Rothschild, Philip) Modified text on 12/15/2021 (MCB).
December 14, 2021 Filing 7 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Midland Credit Management, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Encore Capital Group, Inc. for Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Rothschild, Philip) Modified text on 12/15/2021 (MCB).
November 16, 2021 Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Wayne Baxter. (Patti, Thomas)
November 16, 2021 Filing 5 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Wayne Baxter. Related case(s): No (Patti, Thomas)
November 15, 2021 Filing 4 NOTICE to counsels Jibrael S. Hindi and Thomas John Patti, III of Local Rule 2.02(a), which requires designation of one lead counsel who - unless the party changes the designation - remains lead counsel throughout the action. File a Notice of Lead Counsel Designation to identify lead counsel. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (BD)
November 15, 2021 Filing 3 SUMMONS issued as to Midland Credit Management, Inc.. (BD)
November 12, 2021 Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. New case number: 8:21-cv-2676-VMC-AEP. (MLJ)
November 12, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC with Jury Demand (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AFLMDC-18921632) filed by WAYNE BAXTER. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Patti, Thomas)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Baxter v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: WAYNE BAXTER
Represented By: Thomas John Patti, III
Represented By: Jibrael S. Hindi
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Represented By: Philip E. Rothschild
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?