Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Wood v. Capital One Services, LLC

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
2011 WL 2154279 (2011)


Facts

Gareth Wood (plaintiff) had an account with Capital One Bank (defendant) serviced by Capital One Services, LLC (Services) (defendant). After becoming delinquent in the amount of $1,731.35, the account was referred to NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (NCO) (defendant) for collection. Wood received correspondence from NCO informing him of NCO’s involvement and making disclosures pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Wood also received a “Pre-Legal Notice” (Notice) from Services advising Wood of the potential consequences of a lawsuit but stating that no decision had been made yet to sue. Wood sued the defendants in federal court, seeking class certification, for violations of the FDCPA and New York law on the grounds that the notice deceptively suggested suit was imminent and failed to include required disclosures. Wood served 25 interrogatories and 43 document demands on Services, which answered the interrogatories, produced 1,500 pages of documents, and submitted to a deposition of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 30(b)(6) witness. NCO responded to Wood’s discovery requests by producing 400 pages of emails and designating a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Later, Wood moved to compel additional discovery to support his allegation that the notice was sent on NCO’s behalf. From NCO, Wood requested searches of 11 email accounts using 13 search terms. From Services, Wood requested searches of (1) 41 email accounts using 19 search terms and (2) three files on two hard drives. The defendants moved for a protective order allowing them to disregard Wood’s e-mail search requests. Services averred that production would cost more than $5 million. NCO also cited excessive financial burden.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Peebles, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.