Montano v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-60475

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF)

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

The Parties

2. Plaintiff, Cristina Escorcia Montano, is a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). Plaintiff is a natural person. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida.
3. Defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“MCM”), is a “debt collector” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Upon information and belief, Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business at all relevant times in Florida, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Midland Funding LLC, at 13008 TELECOM DRIVE STE 350, TAMPA, FL 33637, which service is hereby requested.

Factual Allegations

6. Plaintiff reasserts each of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth here in their entirety.
7. Plaintiff alleged “debt” as defined by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) is an alleged debt that arose from a transaction entered into primarily for personal, family, and household purposes.
8. Defendant is a debt collection company that engages in the business of debt collection. Defendant’s principal business purpose is the collection of defaulted debts, and uses various instruments of interstate commerce to accomplish debt collection, including sending letters, calling on the phone, credit reporting, filing lawsuits, etc. For the purposes of this action, Defendant is classified as a “debt collector” under the provisions of the FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
9. Defendant is engaged in the collection of debt from consumers using the mail, electronic communication (such as emails and SMS), and by telephone. Defendants regularly attempt to collect consumers’ debts alleged to be due to another.
10. MCM acquired the account from Credit One Bank, N.A.
11. Plaintiff received an email without prior solicitation or consent from MCM, on January 3, 2026, in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to Credit One Bank, N.A. in the amount of $654.02.
12. On January 31, 2026, Plaintiff responded in writing stating, “I refuse to pay this debt”, see Exhibit 1.
13. Despite the clear refusal to pay, in an attempt to intimidate, harass, and oppress Plaintiff, on January 4, 2026, MCM made subsequent communication attempting to collect this alleged debt by calling Plaintiff from 888-370-9839, see Exhibit 2.
14. MCM called Plaintiff again on January 5, 2026, from 888-370-9839, see Exhibit 3, in an attempt to collect this alleged debt.
15. MCM called Plaintiff again on January 6, 2026, from 888-370-9839, see Exhibit 4, in an attempt to collect this alleged debt.
16. The refusal to pay was not limited to just email communications, but to all communications from MCM in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.
17. This communication was sent to confuse, harass, and deceive the Plaintiff.
18. When a consumer notifies the company in writing of their refusal to pay, the company shall not communicate further unless it meets one of the exceptions according to 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).
19. Defendants did not meet any of the three exceptions under which they can continue to communicate with the Plaintiff, thus violating the Plaintiff’s rights.
20. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection tactics by the Defendant in the form of invasion of privacy, personal embarrassment, loss of productive time, emotional distress, frustration, anger, humiliation, and other negative emotions.
21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, malicious, reckless, wanton, and or negligence, as mandated by the FDCPA, Plaintiff has been harmed, as explained above.

Claims for Relief

COUNT I — MCM’s Violations of 15 U.S.C § 1692 et seq.

22. Plaintiff reasserts each of the preceding paragraphs as if set forth here in their entirety.
23. Defendants’ violations include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Defendants violated 15 U.S.C § 1692c(c) by communicating with the Plaintiff with respect to a debt after a refusal to pay was sent in writing. (b) Defendants violated 15 U.S.C § 1692d by making subsequent communications to the Plaintiff attempting to collect the alleged debt in order to harass her.
24. Defendant failed to reasonably comply with the Plaintiff’s dispute as shown previously. Defendant knew the Plaintiff had refused to pay but chose to dismiss the Plaintiff’s rights under the FDCPA and pursue debt collection activity regardless.
25. Defendants’ actions violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c and 15 U.S.C. § 1692d and render them liable for actual and statutory damages and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.
26. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants’ conduct was willful and carried out in reckless disregard for a consumer’s right as set forth under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Remedies Sought

• WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial and requests that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendant for all damages allowable, costs, expenses, attorney fees, injunctive relief to prevent further violations, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Defendant been found liable in this case?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations made by Plaintiff. Defendant has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. A finding of liability requires a court proceeding where evidence is presented and evaluated by a judge or jury.

What does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibit?

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) prohibits third-party debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices. It requires collectors to send a debt validation notice and prohibits harassment, false representations, and unfair practices. Statutory damages can reach $1,000 per lawsuit plus actual damages and attorney fees.

What is the current status of this case?

This case was recently filed. See the CourtListener docket linked at the bottom of this page for the complete filing record. This page is updated automatically when new documents are filed.

Where can I read the full complaint against Defendant?

The full complaint is publicly available on CourtListener. The Facts as Alleged section above reproduces the complaint’s factual allegations verbatim. The complete case record, including all filings, is available through the docket link at the bottom of this page.

Source: CourtListener. Information on this page is taken verbatim from the court complaint. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.