Young v. Npas, Inc. (361 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 2019)

Clark Waddoups, United States District Judge

Introduction

Before the court are (I) Plaintiff Robyn Young's Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Medicredit for violations of the FDCPA (ECF No. 32); (II)

Ms. Young and Defendant NPAS' Cross Motions regarding whether NPAS violated the FDCPA (ECF Nos. 32 and 91); (III) Defendants' Motion on Actual Damages (ECF No. 88); and (IV) Ms. Young's Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 75). The court heard oral argument on September 19, 2018. (ECF No. 114.)

For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS, in part, Ms. Young's Motion against Medicredit for violations of the FDCPA; GRANTS, in part, Ms. Young's Motion against NPAS for violations of the FDCPA; DENIES Defendants' Motion on actual Damages; and DENIES Ms. Young's Motion to Amend Complaint.

Facts

Plaintiff Robyn Young (Ms. Young) was employed with Granite School District as a teacher for special needs children, including children with severe autism. (ECF No. 100 at 4.) In the Spring of 2013, Ms. Young was attacked at work by one of her students and suffered a concussion. (ECF No. 100 at 4.) In the Spring of 2014, Plaintiff was again attacked at work by a different student. (ECF No. 100 at 4.) As a result of these attacks, Ms. Young suffered from migraine headaches, partial paralysis, sensitivity to light, and blurry vision. (ECF No. 100 at 4.) Ms. Young filed a worker's compensation claim with the State of Utah against Granite School District to recover for her injuries. (ECF No. 100 at 4.)

As part of her treatment for the injuries suffered in 2013 and 2014, Ms. Young sought medical care, on six different dates, from St. Mark's Hospital. St. Mark's Hospital is owned by Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). (See ECF No. 99-1 at 10. ) HCA also owns an entity named "Parallon." (ECF No. 99-1 at 5. ) Parallon, in turn, owns Defendants NPAS, Inc. and Medicredit, Inc. (ECF No. 99-1 at 5. ). NPAS, Inc., Medicredit, Inc., and HSS Systems LLC are all Parallon Affiliates. (ECF No. 93-2 at 4.)

According to NPAS, Inc., NPAS conducts "early out" collections "for St. Mark's Hospital." (ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) NPAS claims that "early out" collections involve "attempts to collect unpaid accounts prior to the time that the account is deemed to be [in] default." (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) According to NPAS, Inc., its collection services for St. Mark's Hospital are governed, "in part," by two agreements: (1) an Intercompany Services Agreement (Intercompany Agreement) and (2) an Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement (Master Agreement). (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) The Intercompany Agreement is "between NPAS on the one hand, and HSS Systems, LLC" on the other. (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) The Master Agreement is between Parallon and "non-party Mountain Division, Inc." (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) Ms. Young was not a party to either agreement.

The Intercompany Agreement provides that "HSS desire[d] to contract with NPAS ... to provide ... early-out collection services for its Client-Hospitals ." (ECF No. 93-3 at 2 (emphasis in original).) The Intercompany Agreement further provides that "NPAS ... shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the amounts owed ...." (ECF No. 93-3 at 3-4.) The Intercompany Agreement also provides that "NPAS ... shall maintain its own employees to provide Early-Out Collection Services for HSS." (ECF No. 93-3 at 4.) And the Agreement provides that "NPAS ... possesses experience and expertise in providing early-out collection services for hospital facilities." (ECF No. 93-3 at 2.)

According to NPAS, "[u]nder the [Master Agreement,] St. Mark's Hospital is a facility which receives services from NPAS and HSS." (Wright Decl., ¶ 5, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) "As part of the services that HSS provides for St. Mark's Hospital, it contracts certain services with NPAS via the [Intercompany Agreement]." (Wright Decl., ¶ 7, ECF No. 93-1 at 4.)

On four of six dates on which Ms. Young received treatment from St. Mark's Hospital, she "signed a 'Conditions of Admission and Consent for Outpatient Care,' [Consent for Care Agreement] in connection with medical services received ...." (See ECF No. 98 at 13-14.) On one date, June 3, 2014, Ms. Young's husband signed one of the Consent for Care Agreements. (See ECF No. 98 at 13.) It is unclear from the record whether Ms. Young signed a Consent for Care Agreement on February 23, 2015. (See ECF No. 98 at 13-14.) Each of these Consent for Care Agreements contained the following provision:

I acknowledge that the Providers may utilize the services of a third party Business Associate or affiliated entity as an extended business office ("EBO Servicer") for medical account billing and servicing. During the time that the medical account is being serviced by the EBO Servicer, the account shall not be considered delinquent, past due or in default, and shall not be reported to a credit bureau or subject to collection legal proceedings. When the EBO Servicer's efforts to obtain payment have been exhausted due to a number of factors (for e.g., Patient of Guarantor's failure to pay or make a payment arrangement after insurance adjustments and payments have been credited, and/or the insurer's denial of claim(s) or benefits is received), the EBO Servicer will send a final notice letter which will include the date that the medical account may be returned from the EBO Servicer to the Provider. Upon return to the Provider by the EBO Servicer, the Provider may place the account back with the EBO Servicer, or, at the option of the Provider, may determine the account to be delinquent, past due and in default. Once the medical account is determined to be delinquent it may be subject to late fees, interest as stated, referral to a collection agency for collection as a delinquent account, credit bureau reporting and enforcement by legal proceedings.

(See ECF No. 92-6 at 3-4.)

As a result of the treatment she received from St. Mark's Hospital, six different accounts were placed with NPAS, and four were placed with Medicredit.

NPAS Accounts

Six different accounts were placed with NPAS as shown in the following chart.

Placement Date Date of Service Amount Account Number 7/22/14 6/3/14 $431.76 4860 2/27/15 5/23/14 $2,539.88 4683 6/11/15 2/23/15 $181.05 1437 12/28/15 11/2/15 $952.84 4604 2/29/16 2/2/16 $847.36 6966 8/2/16 5/29/16 $713.89 1159

NPAS maintained records of these accounts in its Collection Notes. (See ECF No. 32-17 at 1-73.) The court first discusses Account 4683 and then the remaining accounts placed with Medicredit.

Account 4683

On or around October 26, 2015, NPAS sent Ms. Young a letter stating, in part, that "[d]espite [its] efforts," it had "been unable to secure payment on" Account 4683. It also stated: "You are obligated to pay for the services provided." (ECF No. 82-2 at 2.) On or around May 17, 2016, NPAS sent Ms. Young another letter regarding Account 4683 in which it requested that Ms. Young send NPAS her attorney's information. (ECF No. 32-3 at 2.) Ms. Young's attorney, Lester Perry replied on July 5, 2016 with reference to this account, and accounts 6966 and 4604, requesting certain information from NPAS and informing NPAS that there could be other accounts that NPAS was attempting to collect on. (See ECF No. 32-4 at 2.)

Medicredit Accounts

Account 4683 was first placed with Medicredit on October 11, 2014. (Wright Decl., ¶ 21, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2 (Medicredit's Account Notes indicate that the "placement date" of this account was "10/11/2014.").) Four months later, on February 27, 2015, Account 4683 "was placed with NPAS ...." (See ECF No. 98 at 16.) Three additional debts were placed with Medicredit on three different dates for the services that St. Mark's Hospital performed for Ms. Young. (See ECF No. 62 at 15.) All of these debts were assigned different "reference ID" numbers: 4683, 1437, 4604, and 6966. (See ECF No. 101-5 at 2.) Even though the four accounts were each assigned a different reference ID number, Medicredit had a single "consumer ID" that was specifically tied to Ms. Young and all four of her accounts. (See ECF No. 101-5 at 2.)

Medicredit maintained records of these four accounts in its "Medicredit Account Notes" and in its "Noble System" call history log. (Wright Decl., ¶ 20, ECF No. 62-2 at 6.) The Medicredit Account Notes are comprised, at least in part, of "notes from St. Mark's [hospital]" and "notes from NPAS." (See ECF No. 101-2 at 17, Wright Depo. 59: 7-14.) The Medicredit Account Notes also include some entries from the Noble System Call Log.

Medicredit's Account Notes do not clearly delineate between accounts-if it all. (Compare ECF No. 32-16 with ECF No. 32-17 .) In other words, the Medicredit Account Notes appear to be one large, amorphous, omnibus account. In his deposition, Medicredit's 30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Wright, described the Medicredit Account Notes as "a Consumer Fact Sheet out of the system we have at Medicredit." (ECF No. 101-2, Wright Depo. 30: 1-2.) He then stated that "[i]t's called DM9, it's a collection system." (ECF No. 101-2 at 10, Wright Depo. 30:4.) The following line of questioning then ensued between Ms. Young's counsel and Mr. Wright:

Q. What type of information is in the Consumer Fact Sheet?

A. This is the record of the history of accounts that were placed, demographic information, and notes associated, related to those accounts.

Q. So if I wanted to go into the system there at Medicredit and look up, for instance, Mrs. Young's information, how would you do that at Medicredit?

A. There's lots of ways to do it, but the best way to do it would just be to pull the accounts up by the consumer ID number, the upper left-hand corner.

Q. So this ID number would have every account that Medicredit has worked on that -- Mrs. Young?

A. As long as the -- as long as all of the information from subsequent accounts matched in the merging rules, then all those accounts would merge together and belong to one single consumer number for Robyn Young.

(ECF No. 101-2 at 10, Wright Depo. 30:10-22.)

Mr. Wright explained that when an account is placed with Medicredit, no one at Medicredit independently verifies that the consumer actually owes money before Medicredit contacts the consumer. (ECF No. 101-2 at 15, Wright Depo. 52: 6-14. ) Mr. Wright also clarified that the information contained in the "Consumer Fact Sheet" would have been available to Medicredit representatives, but that it would not have been in the same format as has been presented to the court. (See ECF No. 101-2 at 12, Wright Depo. 38: 23-25; 39: 1-6, see also ECF No. 101-2 at 13, Wright Depo. 44: 7-9. )

Medicredit Treatment of Account 4683

As noted, Account 4683 was placed first with Medicredit. (Wright Decl., ¶ 21, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) Medicredit assigned Ms. Young with the "Consumer ID" "48159461" at this time. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 73.)

After receiving Account 4683, Medicredit called Ms. Young six times in October 2014-on October 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 78; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 73.)

Account 4683 was then removed from Medicredit, and placed with NPAS on February 27, 2015. (Wright Decl., ¶ 15, ECF No. 62-2 at 5.) Almost a year later, on February 5, 2016, Medicredit "merged" Ms. Young's previous Consumer ID, "48159461" with the most recent Consumer ID, "29169038." (ECF No. 32-16 at 73.) Again, the Consumer ID allowed Medicredit employees to see all accounts associated with Ms. Young. (See ECF No. 101-2 at 10, Wright Depo. 30:10-22.)

On July 4, 2016, Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit for a second time. (ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) At the same time, NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 4683 were transferred to Medicredit's Account Notes. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 32-43 with ECF No. 32-16 at 7-36.) Many of the entries in NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 4683 are nearly identical to Medicredit's Account Notes dated "7/4/2016". For example, a June 3, 2016 entry from NPAS' Collection Notes providing "LETTER FROM K DAWN ATLAN ... STATING THAT THEY REPRSESENT PT" can be found in Medicredit's Account Notes timestamped "7/4/2016." (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 42 with ECF No. 101-5 at 27.) As another example, NPAS' collection notes from 11/23/15 provides "NOTES: ATTN WORK COMP ... GN STTD THIS ACCT IS WORK COMP RELATED AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER LITIGATION." (ECF No. 32-17 at 34.) Medicredit's Account Notes for 7/4/2016 similarly provide "ATTN WORK COMP ...." and also provide "[T]HIS ACCT IS WORK COMP REL ...." (ECF No. 101-5 at 29.) The similarities between the NPAS Collection Notes and Medicredit's Account Notes demonstrate that NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 4683 were imported into Medicredit's Account Notes on 7/4/2016-the date that Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit for the second time.

On the very next day, Lester Perry sent Medicredit a letter asking for information. (See ECF No. 32-14 at 2.) This letter also referenced Ms. Young's Consumer ID number, 29169038.

On or around July 11, 2016, notwithstanding the letter from Lester Perry, Medicredit sent Ms. Young a further letter about Account 4683, informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (See ECF No. 32-10 at 2; Young Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 101-4 at 4.)

One of Medicredit's Account Note entries confirms that Medicredit had received an attorney letter, at the latest, on July 20, 2016. For example, one of Medicredit's Account Notes, timestamped on 7/20/2016, provides "RECV ATTY REP LETER." (ECF No. 32-16 at 5.) Another entry, timestamped on 7/21/2016 provides "RCVD CORR FROM HOOLE & KING LAW OFFICES STATING THAT THEY REPRESENTS TO CONS AND REQUESTING I/S FOR ACCT# 67838544, 69726746 & 73736726 ...." (ECF No. 32-16 at 5.)

In addition to the July 11 letter, Medicredit also called Ms. Young four more times after July 4, 2016-on July 5, 7, 15, and 21 of 2016. (ECF No. 32-16 at 80.) Importantly, Medicredit called Ms. Young on July 21, 2016-after Medicredit's time stamp from July 20, 2016 revealed that, at least by that date, Medicredit had received a letter from Ms. Young's attorney. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 5.)

Account 1437

"On February 5, 2016," Account 1437 "was first placed with Medicredit." (Wright Decl., ¶ 22, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) Just like Account 4683, NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 1437 were imported into Medicredit's Account Notes on this placement date. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 19-31 with ECF No. 32-16 at 59-73.) For example, a July 29, 2015 entry from NPAS' Collection Notes providing "ATTN WORKERS COMP: RPLS REVIEW, AND DETERMINE ORDER OF INSR. THANK YOU" can be found in Medicredit's Account Notes timestamped on 2/5/2016. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 24 with ECF No. 32-16 at 65.) As another example, NPAS' collection notes from 10/13/15 for Account 1437 provides "CHKD CORRES SAYS CLM IN LITIGATION ...." (ECF No. 32-17 at 26.) The identical entry is found in Medicredit's Account Notes, timestamped on 2/5/2016. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 67.)

After Account 1437 was placed with Medicredit, Medicredit called Ms. Young five times before March 4, 2016 (the date that the next account, Account 4604, was placed with Medicredit). Medicredit called Ms. Young on February 11, 16, 19, 25 of 2016 and on March 3, 2016. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 78.)

On May 13, 2016, Ms. Young's then attorney, Dawn Atkin, sent St. Mark's Hospital a letter regarding Account 1437. (See ECF No. 32-13 at 2.) She informed St. Mark's Hospital that she represented Ms. Young, and that based on "Utah Code. Ann. 34-2-401(b)," Ms. Young "dispute[d] the validity of this debt ...." (ECF No. 32-13 at 2.) An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes, timestamped on 5/27/2016, provides in part, "ATKIN & ASSOC SENT LTR STTN WC HAS BEEN FILED." (ECF No. 101-5 at 37.)

Account 4604

"On March 4, 2016," Account 4604 "was first placed with Medicredit." (Wright Decl., ¶ 22, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) Just like Account 4683 and Account 1437, NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 4604 were imported into Medicredit's Account Notes on this placement date. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 44-46 with ECF No. 32-16 at 51-57.) For example, a December 28, 2015 entry from NPAS' Collection Notes providing "ATTY INVOLVED ON ASSOC ACCT CHECK VALIDITY" can be found in Medicredit's Account Notes timestamped on 3/4/2016. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 45 with ECF No. 32-16 at 57.)

On or around March 8, 2016, Medicredit sent Ms. Young a letter about Account 4604, informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (See ECF No. 32-8 at 2; Young Decl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 101-4 at 4.)

After account 4604 was placed with Medicredit, Medicredit called Ms. Young eight times before April 25, 2016 (the date that the next account, Account 6966, was placed with Medicredit). Medicredit called Ms. Young on March 8, 14, 21, 28, and April 6, 11, 19, and 22, 2016. (ECF No. 32-16 at 78-79.)

As noted above, on July 5, 2016, Ms. Young's attorney, Lester Perry, sent Medicredit a letter regarding this account, and accounts 4683 and 6966, requesting certain information from Medicredit and informing Medicredit that Ms. Young was represented by his firm, Hoole & King. (See ECF No. 32-14 at 2.)

Account 6966

On April 25, 2016, Account 6966 was placed with Medicredit. (ECF No 32-16 at 2.) Just like Account 4683, Account 1437, and Account 4604, NPAS' Collection Notes for Account 6966 were imported into Medicredit's Account Notes on this placement date. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 47-69 with ECF No. 32-16 at 39-51.) For example, a February 2, 2016 entry from NPAS' Collection Notes providing "PT. STATES

THIS IS IN LITIGATION THRU WCF" can be found in Medicredit's Account Notes timestamped on 4/25/2016. (Compare ECF No. 32-17 at 49 with ECF No. 32-16 at 39.)

After Account 6966 was placed with Medicredit, Medicredit called Ms. Young twenty-five times before July 4, 2016 (the date that Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit for the second time). (See ECF No. 32-16 at 79-80.) These calls were made on April 25, 26, 27, 28, May 2, 4, 5, 9, (twice on May 10,) 11, 17, 23, 25, June 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 79-80.)

On or around May 1, 2016, Medicredit sent Ms. Young another letter on this account informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (See ECF No. 32-9 at 2; Young Decl. ¶ 16.)

Standard

Summary judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that may affect the outcome of the litigation. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter." Id. The nonmoving party may not rest solely on allegations on the pleadings, but must instead designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The court must "view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co. , 251 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir. 2001).

Analysis

In her First Amended Complaint, Ms. Young alleges that NPAS and Medicredit violated both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA). (FAC ¶¶ 49-67, ECF No. 26 at 9-12.) For the alleged FDCPA violations, Ms. Young alleges that NPAS and Medicredit violated Sections 1692a, 1692c, 1692d, 1692e, (FAC ¶¶ 51-54, ECF No. 26 at 9) and 1692f (FAC ¶ 58, ECF No. 26 at 10.)

In her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Ms. Young argues that both NPAS and Medicredit violated sections [1] 1692f(1), [2] 1692e(2)(A), [3] 1692e(10), [4] 1692c(a)(2), and [5] 1692c(c) of the FDCPA. (See ECF No. 32 at 15, 19, 21, and 22.) Ms. Young reserves the "determination of other FDCPA" violations "for trial by jury." (ECF No. 32 at 22.) And Ms. Young reserves the "determination" of "state law violations," "tort claims," "and the question of appropriate actual damages" for trial. (ECF No. 32 at 22.)

In Opposition to Ms. Young's Motion, Defendants argue that Ms. Young "has failed to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendants have violated the FDCPA." (ECF No. 62 at 34.) Defendants further argue that Ms. Young is not entitled to summary judgment because she "failed to demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact regarding whether NPAS is a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA." (ECF No. 62 at 28.) On this issue, NPAS argues, in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, that it is entitled to summary judgment "in its favor and against" Ms. Young because "NPAS does not meet the definition of a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA" and cannot "be sued for violating the FDCPA." (ECF No. 91 at 2.) Additionally, Defendants move the court "for partial summary judgment in their favor and against" Ms. Young "on her claim that she sustained actual damages from Defendants' alleged violations of the" FDCPA and UCSPA. (ECF No. 88 at 2.)

The court addresses (I ) Ms. Young's Motion for Summary Judgment against Medicredit; (II ) Ms. Young and NPAS' Cross Motions regarding whether NPAS violated the FDCPA, (III ) Defendants' Motion on actual damages; and (IV) Ms. Young's Motion to Amend Complaint.

I. Ms. Young Is Entitled to Summary Judgment Against Medicredit

"To establish a violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiff must prove ... four elements." Rhodes v. Olson Assocs., P.C. , 83 F.Supp.3d 1096, 1103 (D. Colo. 2015). There is no disputed material fact that as to each of the accounts at issue Plaintiff has satisfied the first three elements against Medicredit.

First, that Plaintiff is a "consumer"-meaning "any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3). It is undisputed that Ms. Young is a natural person. And it is undisputed that Medicredit contacted Ms. Young alleging she was obligated to pay debts for services she received from St. Mark's Hospital. (See e.g. , ECF No. 32-10 at 2.) Ms. Young is a "consumer" under the FDCPA. The first element is met.

Second, that "[t]he 'debt' arises out of a transaction entered primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Rhodes , 83 F.Supp.3d at 1103. It is undisputed that the debts relate to services that St. Mark's provided to Ms. Young for treatment relating to injuries she sustained at work. The second element is met.

Third, that "Defendant collecting the debt is a 'debt collector' within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)." Id. Medicredit's counsel conceded at oral argument that Medicredit is a debt collector. Additionally, the letters to Ms. Young received from Medicredit also identify Medicredit as a "debt collector." (See e.g. , ECF No. 32-10 at 2 ("This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt.") The third element is met.

The fourth element a plaintiff must prove to establish a violation of the FDCPA is that the defendant "violated, by act or omission, a provision of the FDCPA." Rhodes v. Olson Assocs., P.C. , 83 F.Supp.3d 1096, 1103 (D. Colo. 2015). As noted above, Ms. Young argues that Medicredit violated sections [A] 1692f(1), [B] 1692e(2)(A), [C] 1692e(10), [D] 1692c(a)(2), and [E] 1692c(c) of the FDCPA. (See ECF No. 32 at 15, 19, 21, and 22.) The fourth element is disputed and the court addresses Medicredit's violations below.

A. Medicredit Violated 1692(f)(1)

Ms. Young argues that Medicredit "violated the FDCPA by collecting or attempting to collect debts that were not permitted by law." (See ECF No. 32 at 14.) Section 1692f(1) provides that "[t]he collection of any amount" of debt is "a violation of this section" "unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law." 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). Ms. Young argues that Medicredit's efforts to collect the debts at issue were not permitted under Utah law because "Young never owed the debts" Medicredit "tried to collect." (ECF No. 82 at 10.) Rather, Ms. Young argues that her employer, Granite School District, owed the debts.

Ms. Young argues that "[u]nder Utah law," her "employer [was] solely responsible for" the payments relating to "medical expenses incurred within the course and scope of [her] employment." (ECF No. 82 at 10.) Here, Ms. Young relies on Utah's Workers Compensation Act, Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401. That statute provides that an employee of a school district "who is injured ... by accident arising out of and in the course of the employee's employment ... shall be paid ... for ... medical, nurse, and hospital services." Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(1)(b)(i). The statute further provides that "[t]he responsibility for compensation and payment of medical, nursing, and hospital services and medicines ... provided under this chapter shall be ... on the employer and the employer's insurance carrier," and "not on the employee ." Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(2)(a-b) (emphasis added).

Defendants argue that Ms. Young "provides no actual evidence that the unpaid medical debts ... are actually debts regarding which the law prohibits Defendants from taking certain actions." (ECF No. 62 at 34.) But there is no dispute that Ms. Young was employed with Granite School District when she was attacked by students and injured on the job. (See ECF 100 at 4.) Nor is there any dispute that "[a]s a result of these attacks," Ms. Young "filed a worker's compensation claim with the State of Utah against Granite School District." (ECF No. 100 at 4.) Further, at oral argument, Ms. Young's counsel stated that a Utah "administrative decision" confirmed that the debts at issue were not Ms. Young's debts. Defendants did not dispute these facts.

Ms. Young's counsel's representation is supported by a March 10, 2017 Order issued by the Utah Labor Commission Appeals Board. In that Order, Granite School District "ask[ed] the Utah Labor Commission to review" an administrative law judge's "award of benefits to" Ms. Young under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. Young v. Granite School District , 2017 UT Wrk. Comp. Lexis 20 at *1. The Appeals Board explained that "Ms. Young [had] claim[ed] workers' compensation benefits for ongoing symptoms of a head injury she sustained while working for Granite ...." Id. The administrative law judge had "awarded medical benefits and temporary disability compensation to Ms. Young ...." Id. The Appeals Board ultimately "concur[red] with the administrative law judge's "decision awarding benefits to Ms. Young." Id. at *9. The debts at issue were Granite School District's responsibility to pay-not Ms. Young's.

"To evaluate whether" Medicredit's efforts to collect the medical debts at issue were " 'permitted by law,' " "it is necessary to determine which 'law' the [collection efforts] must be 'permitted by.' " Johnson v. Riddle , 305 F.3d 1107, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) ). "At the most basic level, this is an issue of Utah law rather than federal law." C.f. Johnson , 305 F.3d at 1117-18. "[E]very circuit court decision that has applied the 'permitted by law' standard has asked ... whether state substantive law permitted the FDCPA defendant to collect the money that it demanded." Id. at 1118. The Tenth Circuit has held that "an amount is 'permitted by law' within the meaning of the FDCPA if state supreme court holdings establish that collection of the amount is lawful." Id. at 1119. "Absent state supreme court holdings on point, [the Tenth Circuit] follow[s] [the] familiar Erie analysis by predicting what the state supreme court would hold ...." See id. at 1119.

Neither party points the court to any Utah Supreme Court case addressing whether, under the FDCPA, a debt collector is permitted to attempt to collect medical debt from an employee for medical expenses arising from injuries sustained in the course of her employment, where the responsibility to pay is on the employer-not the employee. Nor has the court found any Utah Supreme Court case in its own research. The court notes, however, that the statute is clear-"[t]he responsibility for ... payment of medical ... expenses" for an "employee's" work-related injuries are "on the employer" and "not on the employee. " Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(2)(b) (emphasis added). Because the statute is clear, the court concludes that the Utah Supreme Court would not allow a debt collector to attempt to collect medical debt from an employee when the responsibility to pay for that debt is on the employer.

The court next addresses an argument that Defendants made at oral argument that it is "a disputed fact" about whether Medicredit had knowledge that the accounts at issue were subject to worker's compensation. Defendants' counsel stated that Medicredit's representatives "didn't look at" the "client notes" "when they came over." An underlying assumption of Defendants' argument is that Plaintiff must show that Medicredit had knowledge that the accounts at issue were subject to worker's compensation in order to be liable under the FDCPA. In her reply, Ms. Young argues that "it ... does not matter whether Defendants had notice [that she] was not responsible for the debts" (ECF No. 82 at 2) because the "FDCPA is a strict liability statute that" does not require proof of an intentional violation. (See ECF No. 82 at 11.) The court proceeds in two steps. First, the court addresses whether Medicredit can be charged with knowledge that the accounts at issue were subject to worker's compensation. Second, the court addresses whether this knowledge is even required to show a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

1. Medicredit Is Charged With Knowledge

As noted above, Medicredit's counsel argues that it is "a disputed fact" about whether Medicredit had knowledge that the accounts at issue were subject to worker's compensation because Medicredit's representatives "didn't look at" the "client notes" "when they came over." Here, Defendants' counsel relied on Medicredit's 30(B)(6) representative, Don Wright. (See ECF No. 101-2 at 3, Wright Depo. 5: 2-4.) Mr. Wright testified that it is "not part of the process" at Medicredit to review the account notes that Medicredit receives to collect on. (See ECF No. 101-2 at 17, Wright Depo. 60: 2-6.) Mr. Wright further explained that when an account is placed with Medicredit, no one at Medicredit independently verifies that the consumer actually owes money before Medicredit contacts the consumer. (ECF No. 101-2 at 15, Wright Depo. 52: 6-14. ) Mr. Wright also explained that the information contained in the "Consumer Fact Sheet" would have been available to Medicredit representatives, but that it would not have been in the same format as has been presented to the court. (See ECF No. 101-2 at 12, Wright Depo. 38: 23-25; 39: 1-6, see also ECF No. 101-2 at 13, Wright Depo. 44: 7-9. )

The court rejects Medicredit's arguments that it should not be charged with knowledge of its own records. Mr. Wright's deposition reveals that Medicredit's representatives had access to the Medicredit Account notes. Medicredit is a corporation. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) "[C]orporations are charged with knowledge of information known to their officers ...." Helton v. AT & T Inc. , 709 F.3d 343, 356 (4th Cir. 2013). "[O]fficers are charged with knowledge of information in corporate ... records ...." Id. It is for this reason that "corporate entities ... have constructive knowledge of the contents of their records." Id. Therefore, even though Medicredit's representatives claim not to have reviewed Medicredit's records, Medicredit is still charged with knowledge of the information in the Medicredit Account Notes. As explained, Medicredit had knowledge that each of the four accounts at issue was not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay.

Medicredit Had the Required Knowledge for Account 4683

An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes from October 11, 2014 states "PT CI V HIPAA STATES THIS IS WORK COMP ." (ECF No. 32-16 at 77 (emphasis added).) This is the same date Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit. Because Medicredit's Account Notes indicated that this account was associated with worker's compensation, it is charged with knowledge that this account was not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay under Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(2)(b). Medicredit nevertheless called Ms. Young six times in October 2014 regarding this account. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 78; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 73.) Because Medicredit was not permitted under Utah law to contact Ms. Young, each of these phone calls was a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

As noted above, on July 4, 2016, Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit for a second time. (ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes on that same date from July 4, 2016 provides "ATTN WORK COMP " and also provide "[T]HIS ACCT IS WORK COMP REL ...." (ECF No. 101-5 at 29 (emphases added).) This is further evidence that Medicredit is charged with knowledge that this account was not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay. Medicredit nevertheless sent Ms. Young a letter regarding Account 4683, informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (See ECF No. 32-10 at 2; Young Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 101-4 at 4.) And Medicredit called Ms. Young on July 5, 7, 15, and 21 of 2016. (ECF No. 32-16 at 80.) Each of those phone calls, and the July 11, 2016 letter, were violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

Medicredit Had the Required Knowledge for Account 1437

Account 1437 was first placed with Medicredit on February 5, 2016. (Wright Decl., ¶ 22, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes from that same date provides "ATTN WORKERS COMP ; PLS REVIEW, AND DETERMINE ORDER OF INSR. THANK YOU." (ECF No. 32-16 at 65 (emphasis added).) Medicredit nevertheless called Ms. Young five times before March 4, 2016 (the date that the next account, Account 4604, was placed with Medicredit). Medicredit called Ms. Young on February 11, 16, 19, 25 of 2016 and on March 3, 2016. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 78.) Because Medicredit was not permitted under Utah law to contact Ms. Young, each of these phone calls was a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

Medicredit Had the Required Knowledge for Account 4604

Account 4604 was first placed with Medicredit on March 4, 2016. (Wright Decl., ¶ 22, ECF No. 62-2 at 6; see also ECF No. 32-16 at 2.) An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes from that same date March 4, 2016 provides "WORKERS COMP ." (ECF No. 32-16 at 55 (emphasis added).) Again, because Medicredit's Account Notes indicated that this account was associated with worker's compensation, it is charged with knowledge that this account was not Ms. Young's responsibility. Nevertheless, on or around March 8, 2016, Medicredit sent Ms. Young a letter regarding Account 4604, informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (See ECF No. 32-8 at 2; Young Decl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 101-4 at 4.) Additionally, after account 4604 was placed with Medicredit, Medicredit called Ms. Young eight times before April 25, 2016 (the date that the next account, Account 6966, was placed with Medicredit). Medicredit called Ms. Young on March 8, 14, 21, 28, and April 6, 11, 19, and 22, 2016. (ECF No. 32-16 at 78-79.) Because Medicredit was not permitted under Utah law to contact Ms. Young, each of these phone calls and the March 8, 2016 letter were violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

Medicredit Had the Required Knowledge for Account 6966

Account 6966 was placed with Medicredit on April 25, 2016. (ECF No 32-16 at 2.) An entry from Medicredit's Account Notes from the same date provides "PT. STATES THIS IS IN LITIGATION THRU WCF ...." (ECF No. 32-16 at 39 (emphasis added).) As to this account, Medicredit is also charged with knowledge that this account was not Ms. Young's responsibility. Medicredit called Ms. Young twenty-five times before July 4, 2016 (the date that Account 4683 was placed with Medicredit for the second time). (See ECF No. 32-16 at 79-80.) Medicredit called Ms. Young on April 25, 26, 27, 28, May 2, 4, 5, 9, (twice on May 10,) 11, 17, 23, 25, June 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 79-80.) And on May 1, 2016, Medicredit sent Ms. Young a letter on this account informing her that Medicredit had "the full intention of collecting on this account(s)" and stating that "this office will assume this debt is valid" unless Ms. Young disputed the debt within 30 days of receiving the letter. (ECF No. 32-9 at 2.) Because Medicredit was not permitted under Utah law to contact Ms. Young, each of these phone calls and the May 1, 2016 letter were violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

To summarize, Medicredit is charged with knowledge of the information in the Medicredit Account Notes. The Medicredit Account Notes demonstrate that each of the medical debts owed to St. Mark's hospital were subject to worker's compensation. Because they were subject to worker's compensation, they were not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay under Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(2)(b). Because they were not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay, Medicredit was not permitted under Utah law to contact Ms. Young about any of the accounts. Each time Medicredit contacted Ms. Young, it violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

2. Medicredit Has Strict Liability

In her reply, Ms. Young argues that "it ... does not matter whether Defendants had notice [that she] was not responsible for the debts" (ECF No. 82 at 2) because the "FDCPA is a strict liability statute that" does not require proof of an intentional violation. (See ECF No. 82 at 11.) "While the Tenth Circuit has not ruled definitively that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute, it is true that 'courts generally treat the FDCPA as a strict liability statute .... ' " Sartori v. Steider & Assocs., P.C. , No. 1:15-CV-00991-JCH-LF, 2017 WL 3602029, at *2 (D.N.M. Jan. 19, 2017), report and recommendation adopted , No. 1:15-CV-00991-JCH-LF, 2017 WL 4542882 (D.N.M. Feb. 8, 2017) (quoting Soren v. Equable Ascent Fin., LLC , 2012 WL 2317362, at *2 (D. Utah June 18, 2012) ). "The fact that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute ... means that one does not need to act knowingly or intentionally to violate the statute." Id. "Strict liability means that a plaintiff who can prove a violation of the FDCPA is entitled to statutory damages of up to $1000, 'irrespective of the ability to prove actual damages.' " Id. (quoting Soren , 2012 WL 2317362, at *2.).

Thus, in the alternative, even if Medicredit were not charged with knowledge that the four accounts at issue were subject to worker's compensation and not Ms. Young's responsibility to pay, it still violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) because the FDCPA is a strict liability statute. Because Medicredit was not permitted to contact Ms. Young under Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-401(2)(b), it violated the FDCPA each time if called her or sent her a letter.

B. Medicredit Violated 1692e(2)(A)

Ms. Young argues that Medicredit "violated the FDCPA by making false representations about the character, amount, or legal status of the debt ...." (ECF No. 32 at 16.) 15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides that "the false representation of ... the character, amount, or legal status of any debt" "is a violation" of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

Ms. Young argues that "attempting to collect a debt from a non-debtor 'constitutes a false representation as to the character or status of the debt in violation of 1692e.' " (ECF No. 32 at 18 (citing Stuart v. AR Res., Inc. , No. CIV.A. 10-3520, 2011 WL 904167, at *4 n. 2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2011) ).) Ms. Young's cited authority, Stuart , provides that "an attempt to collect a debt from a non-debtor is best characterized as a misrepresentation as to 'the character, amount, or legal status of any debt' in violation of 1692e(2)(A)." Stuart , 2011 WL 904167 at *4 n. 2. As discussed at length above, Medicredit repeatedly attempted to collect money from Ms. Young on debts that she did not owe. These efforts constitute attempts to collect a debt from a non-debtor. Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).

C. Medicredit Violated 1692e(10)

Ms. Young argues that Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). (See ECF No. 32 at 19.) That provision provides that "[t]he use of any false representation or deceptive means to ... attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer" "is a violation" of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Medicredit sent Ms. Young at least three letters, each requesting that she "give the past due account(s) the attention it deserves." (See ECF Nos. 32-8, 32-9, and 32-10.) As noted above, Ms. Young did not owe on any of these accounts. Medicredit's letters create the false impression that she was obligated to pay these accounts. Medicredit's letters to Ms. Young constituted the use of a "false representation or deceptive mean" to attempt to collect a debt. Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).

D. Medicredit Violated 1692c(a)(2)

Ms. Young argues that Medicredit "violated" § 1692c(a)(2) of "the FDCPA by communicating with Young after [it] knew she was represented by an attorney." (See ECF No. 32 at 19.) That provision provides, in relevant part, that "a debt collector may not communicate with a 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 ...." 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). At least with respect to Account 4683, Medicredit violated § 1692c(a)(2).

On July 5, 2016, Ms. Young's attorney, Lester Perry, sent Medicredit a letter regarding Account 4683-in addition to Account 4604 and Account 6966. (See ECF No. 32-14.) The letter stated that Mr. Perry's firm represented Ms. Young. (ECF No. 32-14 at 2 ("Our firm represents Ms. ... Young, a patient of St. Mark's Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. You have acted as a debt collector seeking to collect monies from Ms. Young for services provided by the Hospital.").) The letter also provided the firm's phone number and address. (ECF No. 32-14 at 2.) An entry from the Medicredit Account Notes, timestamped 7/20/2016 indicates that Medicredit received the letter by that date. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 5 ("RECV ATTY REP LETTER.").) On July 21, 2016, Medicredit called Ms. Young. (See ECF No. 32-16 at 80.) Medicredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) because they contacted Ms. Young after knowing she was represented by an attorney.

E. Ms. Young Has Failed to Prove that Medicredit Violated 1692c(c)

Ms. Young argues that Medicredit "violated" § 1692c(c) of "the FDCPA by failing to cease communicating with Young after receiving her refusal to pay the alleged debts." (See ECF No. 32 at 21.) That provision provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt ...." 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c).

Ms. Young argues that her "attorneys informed Defendants that she did not owe the alleged debts because the Worker's Compensation Fund was solely responsible for payment." (ECF No. 32 at 21.) Here, Ms. Young appears to be referring to the two letters from Dawn Atkin to NPAS, (ECF No. 32-15 at 2-3.) Those letters were regarding Accounts 6966 and 4604. (ECF No. 32-15 at 2-3.) In each of those letters, Dawn Atkin wrote: "based on" " Utah Code Ann. 34A-2-401(b)" "we dispute the validity of this debt as it applies to Robyn Young." (ECF No. 32-15 at 2-3.) The Medicredit Account Notes from July 5, 2016 provide, in relevant part, that "SHE DOES HAVE AN ATTORNEY, DAWN ATKIN," and also provide "LETTER # 2002 VA WC:PAT ND ATY INFO." (ECF No. 32-16 at 15.)

Despite this evidence, an issue of fact remains as to whether the letters should have informed Medicredit that it must cease its collection efforts. First, the attorney letters mentioning "workers compensation claim[s]," (ECF No. 32-15 at 2-3) were sent to NPAS, not Medicredit. While there is evidence that Medicredit was aware that Dawn Atkin had sent letters, (See ECF No. 32-16 at 15) Ms. Young has not presented evidence that Medicredit received the content of those letters. Second, even if Medicredit did receive the contents of those letters, those letters were regarding Accounts 6966 and 4604. An issue of fact exists as to whether that notice should have informed Medicredit that it must cease its collection efforts in Ms. Young's accounts that were not specifically referenced in the letters. Because issues of material fact exist, Ms. Young is not entitled to summary judgment as to whether Medicredit violated § 1692c(c).

Summary as to Medicredit

To summarize, Ms. Young is entitled to summary judgment against Medicredit for violations of Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692c(a)(2) of the FDCPA. Ms. Young is not entitled to summary judgment against Medicredit for violating section 1692c(c). Ms. Young's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Medicredit is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

II. Cross-Motions On Whether NPAS Violated the FDCPA

As already discussed, "[t]o establish a violation of the FDCPA, Plaintiff must prove ... four elements." Rhodes v. Olson Assocs., P.C. , 83 F.Supp.3d 1096, 1103 (D. Colo. 2015). As is the case against Medicredit, there is no dispute as to NPAS that Ms. Young satisfies the first and second elements. There is, however, a dispute as to the third and fourth elements.

NPAS argues that Ms. Young cannot meet the third element-that the "Defendant collecting the debt is a 'debt collector' within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)." Id. The term "debt collector" means "[1] any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or [2] who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. " 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (emphases added). Thus, "[t]he FDCPA establishes two alternative predicates for 'debt collector status': 1) engaging in debt collection as the 'principal purpose' of the entity's business; or 2) engaging in debt collection [for another] 'regularly.' " See James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir. 2013) (emphases added) (citation omitted).

NPAS Regularly Engages in Debt Collection for Another

The evidence in the record supports that NPAS "regularly collects or attempts to collect" "debts owed" "or asserted to be owed or due another." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). "The term 'debt' means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the ... services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal ... purposes." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). The Intercompany Agreement between NPAS and HSS provides that "HSS desires to contract with NPAS ... to provide ... early-out collection services for its Client-Hospitals ." (ECF No. 93-3 at 2 (emphasis in original).) Under a section of the Intercompany Agreement titled "Early-Out Collection Services," the Agreement provides that "NPAS ... shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the amounts owed ...." (ECF No. 93-3 at 3-4 (emphasis added and removed).) NPAS sent Ms. Young a letter on or around November 5, 2015 regarding Account 4683 stating "[d]espite our best efforts, we have been unable to secure payment on this account. You are obligated to pay for the services [St. Mark's] provided." (ECF No 82-2 at 2.) It is undisputed that NPAS has contracted to collect "amounts owed" for services provided by hospitals. On the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could only find NPAS collects or attempts to collect "debts owed" for "another"-hospitals.

The next question is whether there is undisputed evidence in the record that NPAS "regularly" attempts to collect these debts owed. The Tenth Circuit has noted that "[t]he term 'regularly' means 'at fixed and certain intervals, regular in point in time. In accordance with some consistent or periodical rule or practice.' " James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 1316 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1286 (6th Ed.1990) ). But the Tenth Circuit has also noted that "it is evident that Congress intended the 'principal purpose' prong to differ from the 'regularly' prong of its definition of 'debt collector.' " Id. at 1317. The Tenth Circuit provided that the plain meaning of the term "regularly" "does not by itself differentiate the amount or frequency of debt collection that is a 'regular' part of debt collection from an amount or frequency of debt collection that is a 'principal purpose' of debt collection." Id.

In James v. Wadas , the Tenth Circuit directed lower courts to look to certain factors in determining whether law firms "regularly" engage in debt collection. NPAS is clearly not a law firm. But the court nevertheless finds many of the factors discussed in James v. Wadas to be helpful in determining whether NPAS "regularly" attempts to collect debts.

The first factor is "the absolute number of debt collection communications issued ... over the relevant period." James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d at 1317 (citation omitted). It is undisputed that between October 6, 2014 and April 12, 2017, NPAS called Ms. Young 21 times regarding the six accounts at issue. (Compare ECF No. 32 at 6-7 with ECF No. 62 at 13-14.) And it is undisputed that NPAS sent Ms. Young at least five letters. (Compare ECF No. 32 at 4-6 with ECF No. 62 at 7-13.) This factor weighs in favor of NPAS having "regularly" attempted to collect debt.

The second factor is "the frequency of such communication ... including whether any patterns of such activity are discernible." James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d at 1317. In the month of July, 2015, NPAS called Ms. Young six times. In September of 2016, it again called her six times. This factor also weighs in Ms. Young's favor.

The third factor is "whether the entity has personnel specifically assigned to work on debt collection activity." James , 724 F.3d at 1317. The Intercompany Agreement provides that "NPAS ... shall maintain its own employees to provide Early-Out Collection Services for HSS." (ECF No. 93-3 at 4.) This factor also weighs in Ms. Young's favor.

The fourth factor is "whether the entity has systems ... in place to facilitate such activity." James , 724 F.3d at 1317. NPAS' 30(B)(6) witness testified that NPAS "track[s] collection activity" and agreed that NPAS' "metrics" include "collections." (ECF No. 101-1 at 7, Wright Depo. 18: 18-24.) This factor again weighs in Ms. Young's favor.

The fifth factor is "whether the activity is undertaken ... in connection with ongoing client relationships ... to assist in the collection of outstanding consumer debt obligations." See James , 724 F.3d at 1317. The Intercompany Agreement establishes that NPAS contracted with HSS to provide "early-out collection services" for "Client-Hospitals." This factor weighs in Ms. Young's favor.

The Tenth Circuit also held that "whether" the alleged debt collector "market[s] itself as having debt collection expertise may also be an indicator of the regularity of collection ...." James , 724 F.3d at 1318. The Intercompany Agreement provides that "NPAS ... possesses experience and expertise in providing early-out collection services for hospital facilities." (ECF No. 93-3 at 2 (emphasis added).) This weighs in Ms. Young's favor.

All factors weigh in favor of NPAS "regularly" collecting debts. The court holds that on undisputed facts NPAS qualifies as "debt-collector" under the second prong of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). NPAS regularly engages in debt collection for others-hospitals. On these facts, no reasonable jury could find otherwise and NPAS meets the Tenth Circuit factors to be found as a matter of law to be a debt collector.

Principal Purpose

Under the first prong, "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts" is a debt-collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). It is undisputed that NPAS uses the mails to collect debts. The question for the court is whether NPAS' "principal purpose" is debt collection. " 'Principal,' in relevant part, is defined as 'most important, consequential, or influential.' " McAdory v. M.N.S & Assocs., LLC , No. 3:17-CV-00777-HZ, 2017 WL 5071263, at *3 (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2017) (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 1802 (2002) ).

As discussed above, NPAS contracted with HSS to provide collection services for hospitals. (See ECF No. 93-3 at 2 (emphasis in original).) And NPAS maintains its own employees to provide Early-Out Collection Services for HSS. (See ECF No. 93-3 at 4.) NPAS also "track[s] collection activity," and its "metrics" include "collections." (ECF No. 101-1 at 7, Wright Depo. 18: 18-24.) NPAS presented no evidence that its efforts to collect amounts owed its clients is incidental or secondary to any other aspect of its business. On these facts the court must conclude that NPAS' principal purpose is debt collection. The court holds that NPAS is also a "debt-collector" under the first prong of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

At Least Account 4683 Is in Default Under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii)

The term "debt collector" "does not include" "any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity ... concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person." 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). NPAS may therefore "be excluded from the statutory definition [of debt collector]-and therefore from regulation under the FDCPA-if the debt it was collecting was not in default." Morrison v. Clear Management Solutions , No. 1:17-CV-51, 2019 WL 122905, at *8 (D. Utah Jan. 7, 2019). "Unfortunately, the FDCPA does not define so key a term as 'default.' " Alibrandi v. Fin. Outsourcing Servs., Inc. , 333 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2003). "Without clarity from Congress, the determination of whether a debt is in default is to be made by the court on a case-by-case basis." Head v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC , No. 14-CV-1363-EFM-KMH, 2015 WL 4276148, at *4 (D. Kan. July 14, 2015) ; see also Cleary v. Hertz Rent-A-Car , No. CIV.A. 13-1824, 2013 WL 3915217, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2013) ("the issue of when a debt is in default ... should be determined on a 'case by case basis.' ").

NPAS' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment "is limited to the argument that NPAS is not a 'debt collector' as defined in the FDPCA because it limits its activities to debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by NPAS." (ECF No. 110 at 9.) In support of this argument, NPAS relies on the Intercompany Agreement, the Master Agreement, and the Consent for Care Agreements.

The court first addresses the Intercompany Agreement and the Master Agreement. As noted above, Ms. Young was not a party to the Intercompany Agreement. Nor was she a party to the Master Agreement. As explained above, the Intercompany Agreement is "between NPAS on the one hand, and HSS Systems, LLC" on the other. (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) The Master Agreement is between Parallon and "non-party Mountain Division, Inc." (Wright Decl., ¶ 3, ECF No. 93-1 at 3.) NPAS relies on these agreements to support its position that NPAS only serviced accounts that were not in default. (See ECF No. 91 at 13.) The court is unpersuaded by NPAS' argument that it should defer to the definition of default in the agreements between NPAS and HSS and between Parallon and Mountain Division. Permitting these entities to "define default without knowledge and input from the debtor ... because the debtor is not a party to the contract ... would controvert the purpose of the FDCPA." Morrison v. Clear Management Solutions , No. 1:17-CV-51, 2019 WL 122905, at *8 (D. Utah Jan. 7, 2019).

NPAS' argument under the Consent for Care Agreements also fails. In its Reply, NPAS relies primarily on the Consent for Care Agreements that Ms. Young did sign to support its argument that it is not bound by the FDCPA. (See ECF No. 110 at 12 ("a straightforward reliance on the [Consent for Care] Agreements confirms that NPAS is not bound by the FDCPA ....").) The Consent for Care Agreements provided that "[d]uring the time that the medical account is being serviced by the [Extended Business Office] Servicer, the account shall not be considered ... in default ...." (ECF No. 92-6 at 3.) The Consent for Care Agreements allowed the "Provider," St. Mark's Hospital, to unilaterally determine when the debt was "in default." (See ECF No. 92-6 at 3-4 ("Upon return to the Provider by the EBO Servicer, the Provider ... may determine the account to be ... in default.").) The Agreements further provided that "[o]nce the medical account is determined to be delinquent it may be subject to ... referral to a collection agency as a delinquent account ...." (ECF No. 92-6 at 4.)

According to NPAS, the Consent for Care Agreements "contractually define the periods of default on any debt resulting from [Ms. Young's] receipt of medical services," and Ms. Young, "as a party" to those agreements, is bound by them for the purposes of determining whether her debt was "in default" under the FDCPA. NPAS' position is that until Congress ends its silence regarding the definition of the term "default," parties may contractually define their own periods of default-and that under the Consent for Care Agreement, the debt NPAS was attempting to collect on was not in "default." (See ECF No. 110 at 10.)

This court acknowledges that some courts have looked to "contractual provisions between" "creditors and debtors to determine whether a debt is in default at any given time." See Barbato v. Greystone All., LLC , No. 3:13-CV-2748, 2017 WL 1193731, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2017) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). But "other courts have stated that, in view of the FDCPA's purpose of eliminating abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors ... this standard is sometimes too lenient towards the potential debt collector." See id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This purpose would be contravened if a creditor were unilaterally able to determine when and if an account was in default for FDCPA purposes and therefore whether the provisions of the FDCPA applied to the debt collection activities of the collectio