Quick Answer: Byron Bedell, proceeding pro se, sued Transworld Systems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Case No. 3:26-cv-02339-SAL-TER, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., specifically §§ 1692c(c), 1692e, and 1692f. The complaint alleges Transworld continued calling Plaintiff to collect an alleged credit-card debt of $18,480.33 after Plaintiff sent written notice refusing to pay. Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. This is a legal filing containing allegations; no finding of liability has been made.
Case Update — September 25, 2026
2026-06-16: Doc 3 — MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Byron Bedell. Response to Motion due by 6/30/2026. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Motions referred to Thomas E. Rogers, III. (wmil, ) (Entered: 06/17/2026) — Link
2026-06-16: Doc 5 — Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Byron Bedell.(wmil, ) (Entered: 06/17/2026) — Link
2026-06-24: Doc 10 — ***DOCUMENT MAILED 8 Order Service – Non-Inmate, 9 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis w/nef placed in U.S. Mail from Florence Clerks Office to Byron Bedell 100 Trowbridge Rd Columbia, SC 29229 (swel, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026) — Link
2026-06-24: Doc 9 — ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis per order # 8 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 6/24/26.(swel, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026) — Link
2026-06-24: Doc 8 — ORDER authorizing service of process by clerk and directing plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 6/24/26. (swel, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026) — Link
2026-06-24: Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis — Link
2026-06-24: Document Mailed — Link
2026-06-24: Doc 11 — Summons Issued as to Transworld Systems Inc.. Service due by 9/22/2026 (swel, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026) — Link
2026-08-05: Doc 13 — ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Transworld Systems Inc..(Riddle, Matthew) (Entered: 08/05/2026) — Link
2026-08-05: Doc 14 — Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Transworld Systems Inc..(Riddle, Matthew) (Entered: 08/05/2026) — Link
2026-08-05: Doc 15 — Corporate Disclosure Statement by Transworld Systems Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Aston Acquisition Corp. for Transworld Systems Inc… (Riddle, Matthew) (Entered: 08/05/2026) — Link
2026-08-06: Doc 17 — CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 8/26/2026, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 9/21/2026, Rule 26 Report due by 9/9/2026, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 10/20/2026, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 11/16/2026, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 12/14/2026, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/4/2027, Discovery due by 2/2/2027, Motion in Limine due by 4/5/2027, Motions due by 2/16/2027, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 4/12/2027, Jury Selection Deadline 5/3/2027, Mediation Due by 3/2/2027, Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 8/6/26. (swel, ) (Entered: 08/06/2026) — Link
2026-08-07: Doc 19 — Notice of Change of Address — Link
2026-08-07: Document Mailed — Link
2026-09-01: Doc 21 — Notice of Standing Order — Link
2026-09-01: Document Mailed — Link
2026-09-03: Doc 23 — Notice of Settlement — Link
2026-09-24: Doc 24 — Summons Returned Executed – Complaint Served — Link
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
- Plaintiff Byron Bedell is a natural person residing in the District of South Carolina and is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).
- Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in Ft. Washington, PA.
- Defendant is a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Defendant’s principal business purpose is the collection of consumer debts, and Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due to another.
Factual Allegations
- Defendant is a third party collection agency based in Ft. Washington, PA. Defendant is not the original creditor of the alleged debt at issue.
- The alleged debt arises from a credit card account originally owed to JP Morgan CHASE, and was incurred for personal and household purposes, not for any business or commercial use.
- Defendant was attempting to collect the alleged debt on behalf of a third party and reported the account as a collection account on Plaintiff’s consumer credit report, identifying itself as a third-party collector rather than the original creditor.
- On or about May 27, 2026, Defendant called Plaintiff (from telephone# 929-977-0925) attempting to collect an alleged debt in the amount of 18,480.33 (See Exhibit A)
- On May 28, 2026 (3:52 p.m.), Plaintiff responded to Defendant in writing via email, clearly stating that Plaintiff refused to pay the alleged debt. (See Exhibit B & C)
- Defendant received Plaintiff’s written refusal to pay. Despite receiving Plaintiff’s refusal to pay, Defendant called again on May 29, 2026 (from telephone# 929-977-0925) attempting to collect a debt. (See Exhibit D)
Claims for Relief
COUNT I — FDCPA VIOLATION 15 U.S.C. §1692c(c)
- Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs as though fully stated here
- On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff at 3:52 p.m. sent Defendant a written communication clearly stating that Plaintiff refused to pay the alleged debt.
- After receiving Plaintiff’s written refusal to pay, Defendant on May 29, 2026, continued to communicate with Plaintiff regarding the alleged debt.
- Defendant’s continued communications were not for any other purpose permitted after a refusal to pay.
- Plaintiff suffered actual, statutory and punitive damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, anxiety, emotional distress, agony, decreased ability to concentrate at work,’time wasted addressing the improper conduct, and frustration, among other negative emotional and mental harm.
COUNT II — FDCPA VIOLATIONS 15 U.S.C. §§1692e
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.
- Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs as though fully stated here.
- Defendant’s continued communication after Plaintiff prohibited contact constitutes harassment under §1692d.
- Plaintiff suffered actual, statutory and punitive damages, including but not limited to mental anguish, anxiety, emotional distress, agony, decreased ability to concentrate at work,’time wasted addressing the improper conduct, and frustration, among other negative emotional and mental harm.
COUNT III — FDCPA VIOLATIONS OF 15 U.S.C. § 1692f
- Avers that continuing to contact a consumer after a cease and desist is requested is unfair, abusive and unlawful.
- The Defendants actions violate Sec. 1692f of Title 15 U.S.C.
Remedies Sought
- Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k;
- Actual damages;
- Costs of this action; and
- Such other relief as the Court deems 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
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 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.
Part of the Federal Lawsuits Database
This case is one of 364 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.
