Quick Answer: Christina Campbell sued Midland Credit Management, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Campbell alleges that Midland Credit Management violated the FDCPA by sending a collection communication after being informed that she was represented by an attorney and had requested no further contact. She seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief as deemed appropriate by the court. This is a legal filing containing allegations; no finding of liability has been made.
Case Update — August 19, 2026
2026-08-12: Case Assigned/Reassigned — Link
2026-08-12: Clerk’s New Suit Notice — Link
2026-08-12: Doc 3 — Order Regulating Practice — Link
2026-08-12: Doc 4 — Summons Issued — Link
2026-08-12: Jury Demand — Link
2026-08-12: Doc 2 — Request for Clerk to Issue Document — 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 is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Texas, residing in Colin County, Texas. PAGE | 1 of 5
- Defendant is a Kansas corporation, with its principal place of business located in San Diego, California. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
- Plaintiff, respectfully, demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.
Factual Allegations
- On or about July 26, 2026, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the “Consumer Debt”) from Plaintiff.
- The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had to pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer Debt and Plaintiff (the “Subject Service”).
- Upon information and belief, the Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
- Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection.
- Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.
- Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another.
- As such, Defendant is a “debt collector” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
- Section 1692c(a)2 of the FDCPA prohibits a “debt collector,” without prior consent from the “consumer,” from communicating with said consumer in connection with the collection of any debt “if the debt collector knows the consumer is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless PAGE | 2 of 5 the attorney fails to respond within a reasonable period of time to a communication from the debt collector or unless the attorney consents to direct communication with the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)2. The Violative Conduct
- On or about July 26, 2026, Defendant attempted to collect the Consumer Debt by and through a collection communication (the “First Collection Communication”).
- Attached as “Exhibit A” is a copy of the First Collection Communication.
- On or about August 13, 2025, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter informing Defendant that Plaintiff is represented by an Attorney and to cease all communications (the “Cease and Desist Letter”).
- A screenshot of the Cease and Desist Letter is attached hereto as “Exhibit B.”
- Upon information and belief, the Cease and Desist Letter was received by Defendant on August 24, 2025.
- Upon receipt of the Cease and Desist Letter, Defendant knew that it could not communicate with Plaintiff directly in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt.
- On or about August 28, 2025, despite knowing that Plaintiff had requested Defendant to stop contacting them, Defendant sent Plaintiff another collection communication in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt (the “Second Collection Communication”).
- A screenshot of the Second Collection Communication is attached hereto as “Exhibit C.”
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 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.
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 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 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.
