Quick Answer: A federal lawsuit was filed by Derrick Saunders against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC on April 5, 2026 in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. Case No. 8:26-cv-00973. The complaint alleges Jefferson Capital Systems violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by continuing to contact the plaintiff about an alleged debt after he notified them in writing that he refused to pay. This is a legal filing, not a verdict.
Case Update — August 4, 2026
2026-04-06: Doc 7 — Disclosure Statement – LR 3.03 and FRCP 7.1 — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 8 — Notice of a Related Action — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 3 — NOTICE of Local Rule 1.07(c), Local Rule 3.02(a)(2), and Local Rule 3.03. -Local Rule 1.07(c) requires lead counsel to file promptly a Notice of a Related Action identifying and describing any related action either pending or closed in the Middle District or elsewhere. -Local Rule 3.02(a)(2) requires the parties in every civil proceeding, except those described in subsection (d), to file a case management report (CMR) using the uniform form at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The CMR must be filed (1) within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within seventy days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases. These forms can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under the Forms tab for each judge. -Local Rule 3.03 requires each party to file a disclosure statement. Counsel must make their disclosures using the standard court form. The Disclosure Statement form can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (BGS) (Entered: 04/06/2026) — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 2 — NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge John L. Badalamenti and Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. New case number: 8:26-cv-00973-JLB-AAS. (JOS) (Entered: 04/06/2026) — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 6 — SUMMONS issued as to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC. (ARL) (Entered: 04/06/2026) — Link
2026-04-06: Notice to Counsel of Local Rule — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 4 — NOTICE informing the parties that they may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge by filing Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge using the event Consent to Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (BGS) (Entered: 04/06/2026) — Link
2026-04-06: Doc 5 — CIVIL Action Order. Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 4/6/2026. (BGS) (Entered: 04/06/2026) — Link
2026-04-06: Case Assigned/Reassigned — Link
2026-05-08: Doc 9 — Answer to Complaint — Link
2026-06-22: Doc 10 — Notice of settlement — Link
2026-06-23: Order Dismissing Case — Link
2026-06-24: Notice to Counsel of Local Rule — Link
Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Saunders v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00973
Facts as Alleged in the Complaint
The following facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Derrick Saunders against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida on April 5, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.
I. Introduction
- This is an action for actual and statutory damages brought by Plaintiff, Derrick Saunders, an individual consumer, against Defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC (hereinafter “Defendant”), for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C §1692 et seq. (hereinafter “FDCPA”), which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
- Jurisdiction of this court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1331. Venue in this District is proper in that the Defendant transacts business in Bradenton, Florida and the conduct complained of occurred in Bradenton, Florida.
III. Parties
- Derrick Saunders (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a natural person residing in Bradenton, Florida. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692a(3).
- Plaintiff is alleged to owe a “debt” as defined by the FDCPA, §15 U.S.C 1692a(5) and the alleged debt at issue arose from a transaction entered into primarily for personal use.
- Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Minnesota corporation.
- Defendant is engaged in the collection of debt from consumers using the mail and telephone. Defendant regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged to be due to another.
IV. Facts of the Complaint
- Defendant is a “debt collector” as defined by the FDCPA, §15 U.S.C 1692a(6).
- On or about January 15, 2026, Defendant texted the Plaintiff, attempting to collect on an alleged debt owed to Fortiva Credit Card.
- On or about January 21, 2026, Plaintiff replied to Defendant’s text stating, “Mr. Jefferson, you will never get a dime from me.”
- On or about January 23, 2026, Defendant texted Plaintiff, communicating about the alleged debt, which was a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c).
- Additionally, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on February 27, 2026, communicating and attempting to collect on the alleged debt.
- Defendant’s actions were to coerce Plaintiff into paying the alleged debt.
- Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection communications by Defendant in the form of invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, anger, anxiety, decreased productivity at work, frustration, and other negative emotions.
Claims for Relief
V. First Claim for Relief — 15 U.S.C 1692c(c)
- Plaintiff re-alleges and reincorporates all previous paragraphs as fully set out herein.
- Defendant violated the FDCPA.
- Defendant’s violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by communicating with the consumer after the consumer notified Defendant in writing that Plaintiff refuses to pay the alleged debt.
- As a result of the violation, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs.
Remedies Sought
- Judgment for the violations occurred for violating the FDCPA
- Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C 1692k(a)(1)
- Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C 1692k(a)(2)
- Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C 1692k(a)(3)
- Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper
About This Coverage
I monitor federal court cases involving debt relief companies as an educational resource for consumers, other companies in the industry, and regulators. This project began on February 27, 2026, and covers cases filed on or after February 20, 2026. Cases filed before that date are not included. I am currently monitoring 334 companies in the debt relief space.
I report on all cases I am able to monitor — no company is singled out or targeted. The goal is comprehensive, fair coverage that helps consumers understand the legal landscape.
Important: The information on this page comes directly from court documents. I present the allegations exactly as stated in those filings — I do not interpret, summarize, or paraphrase complaint language, as doing so could introduce unintended bias. These are allegations, not findings of fact. Every defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the claims in court. A lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing.
You can view the full docket at CourtListener.
Are you a party to this case? I welcome statements, corrections, and updates from any party — plaintiff, defendant, or their counsel. If you'd like to add context or a statement for readers, please contact me directly. I will publish it here.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) and what does it protect?
Section 1692c(c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires a debt collector to cease communication with a consumer if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay the debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication. After receiving such notification, the debt collector may not communicate further with the consumer except to advise the consumer that collection efforts are being terminated, to notify the consumer that specific remedies may be invoked, or to notify the consumer that the debt collector intends to invoke a specified remedy.
What qualifies as a written “cease communication” notice under the FDCPA?
Under the FDCPA, a consumer’s written notification that they refuse to pay a debt or wish the collector to stop communicating triggers the collector’s obligation to cease contact. The statute uses the term “in writing,” and courts have addressed whether text messages and emails can constitute written notice. The key question is whether the consumer clearly communicated their refusal to pay or their wish for communications to stop.
The Daily Money Brief — Free, at 10 AM
Money you may be owed, scams to dodge, and the fine print decoded — the consumer money news that affects your wallet, every weekday.
What damages can a consumer recover under the FDCPA?
The FDCPA allows consumers to recover actual damages sustained as a result of the violation, additional statutory damages up to $1,000 for individual actions, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court. Actual damages can include emotional distress damages such as anxiety, stress, and loss of productivity that resulted from the debt collector’s violation.
Source: CourtListener — Saunders v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Docket 73148225. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.
See Also: Is Jefferson Capital Systems Legit in 2026? Here’s How to Find Out
Dealing With Debt? Understanding your options is the first step. See how all your debt relief options compare — including ones most sites won’t tell you about. The Find Your Path quiz gives a recommendation based on your actual numbers, and the Scam-O-Meter checks any company’s complaint history before you sign. Federal Reserve research shows bankruptcy filers recover faster than those who don’t file.
Part of the Federal Lawsuits Database
This case is one of 353 federal court cases involving debt relief companies tracked at Federal Lawsuits Against Debt Relief Companies. Browse by company type, legal claim, or alleged conduct to identify industry-wide patterns.
Are you dealing with a debt relief company? If you're considering working with a debt relief company or have already signed a contract, use my free Find Your Path tool to get personalized guidance on your situation.
