Small v. UHG I LLC, No. 0:25-cv-62058 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2026)
A federal court in South Florida just held a debt collection law firm (Pollack & Rosen, P.A.) liable under the FDCPA for taking a default judgment on the full balance of a debt it had already agreed to settle for sixty percent.
I love when Courts reach for football metaphors and this Defendant earned it:
"There are consequences for not just dropping the ball but for literally scoring the winning touchdown for the other team."
The story starts with a 2019 loan taken out in the plaintiff's name without her knowledge, which went into default after her sister died. The defendant sued her in state court. At mediation, the two sides settled for sixty percent of the balance, payable at $135.28 a month for five years, with no interest or penalties. The defendant's staff even helped the plaintiff enroll in its automatic payment portal.
The first payment went through. The second did not, because of a glitch in the defendant's own payment system. The plaintiff's card was "valid and active" and her account had the money.
The defendant did not look into whether its own system was to blame. Instead, it obtained a default judgment for the full $13,453.37, not the settlement amount. Its affidavit to the state court said the whole loan was owed and never mentioned the system error.
The plaintiff learned she was in default only after the judgment was entered. When she called and emailed to sort it out, nobody answered.
So she sued in federal court and brought two FDCPA claims. Count I, under § 1692e(2)(A), alleged that the defendant falsely represented the amount and legal status of the debt when it asked the state court for a default judgment.
Count II, under § 1692f, alleged that the defendant used unfair means to collect by failing to process the second payment and then seeking a default judgment without any notice. She sought $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney's fees and costs.
The defendant brought the same sloppy energy to federal court that it brought to the payment portal. It answered the complaint late. It never served initial disclosures. It ignored requests for admission until after the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on them. It then moved to withdraw its admissions and skipped the hearing on its own motion. It responded to summary judgment only after being ordered to, and it never filed a statement of material facts to dispute the plaintiff's version of events.
In the Court's words, the history "confirms [the defendant's] lack of compliance and disregard for this Court's orders and rules."
That left the plaintiff's facts uncontroverted, and the only question was whether those facts added up to a violation. An FDCPA claim needs three things: the plaintiff was the object of collection activity on a consumer debt, the defendant is a debt collector, and the defendant did something the statute prohibits. The Court also noted that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute that "typically subjects debt collectors to liability even when violations are not knowing or intentional," citing Owen v. I.C. Sys., Inc. A glitch is no excuse.
Count I prevailed. Section 1692e bars "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt," and specifically a false representation of "the character, amount, or legal status of any debt."
Trying to collect a debt that is not owed fits that description, as in Bodur v. Palisades Collection, LLC. Here, the defendant told a court the plaintiff owed the whole loan when the deal was sixty percent. The Court found all three elements met and granted summary judgment on liability.
The Court was not finished, though. The defendant now has until October 16 to explain in writing why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with court orders and rules.
A collector that took a default judgment over one missed payment has now missed nearly everything else. This time, the system error was not the plaintiff's problem.
