Case: 18-50661 Document: 00515372650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-50661 April 6, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce LUIS TEJERO, Clerk Plaintiff – Appellant, MICHAEL JACOB WOOD; CELETHA CHATMAN; ROBERT ALAN ZIMMER, JR.; TYLER HICKLE, Appellants, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.; WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Before ELROD, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge: Luis Tejero sued Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a parallel state law. The parties eventually reached a settlement that forgave Tejero’s debt and awarded him $1,000 in damages. As favorable as that result was to the plaintiff, the district court determined that Tejero’s attorneys did not settle his lawsuit quickly enough. So the district court sanctioned them. That was an abuse of discretion, Case: 18-50661 Document: 00515372650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 No. 18-50661 so we reverse it. But we disagree with Tejero that the district court is biased against him, so we affirm the denial of his recusal motion. I. A. Portfolio Recovery attempted to recover from Tejero a credit-card debt of approximately $2,100. As a debt collector in Texas, Portfolio Recovery was obligated to comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“Texas Act”). The former makes it unlawful for a debt collector to “use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. That prohibition includes, among other things, communicating “credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.” Id. § 1692e(8). The Texas Act contains a parallel prohibition. See TEX. FIN. CODE §§ 392.202(a), 392.301(a)(3). Tejero says he disputed his credit-card debt in January 2016. Through his attorneys, Tejero sent the following fax to Portfolio Recovery: Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you regarding the account referenced above. I refuse to pay this debt. My monthly expenses exceed my monthly income; as such there is no reason for you to continue contacting me, and the amount you are reporting is not accurate either. If my circumstances should change I will be in touch. Sincerely, Luis Tejero Despite this letter, Portfolio Recovery subsequently informed a consumer agency of the debt without noting that Tejero disputed it. 2 Case: 18-50661 Document: 00515372650 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 No. 18-50661 In June 2016, Tejero sued Portfolio Recovery for violating the FDCPA and the Texas Act. In September of that year, the district court ordered the parties to exchange settlement offers by October 19, 2016. Portfolio Recovery offered to settle the case for $1,101, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 1 Tejero’s lawyers neither submitted a written offer nor responded to Portfolio Recovery’s offer. Later, during ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals