Ryan Six v. Iq Data International, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
BACKGROUND
IQ acquired a debt obligation for Six’s purported breach of a residential lease. Six learned of the debt and, on August 18, 2021, mailed a letter to Equifax disputing the debt and requesting documentation of it. The same day, Six’s counsel mailed a letter directly to IQ providing notice that Six was represented and that all correspondence should be sent to counsel. On September 2, 2021, IQ received Six’s dispute letter and submitted an internal request to generate and send the requested documentation to Six’s mailing address. The next day, September 3, IQ updated its records to show that it had processed Six’s counsel’s letter and that direct communication should cease. But on that same day, IQ also sent the letter with verification of the debt to Six’s mailing address.
1 In a separately filed memorandum disposition, we affirm the district court’s resolution of the parties’ joint discovery dispute and the court’s modified grant of attorneys’ fees. 2 The parties may litigate the affirmative defenses on remand. And in any event, Six is not precluded from appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to strike in a future appeal.