Kongtcheu v. Comcast Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-cv-11869-RGS
PHILIBERT KONGTCHEU
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST REPRESENTATIVE X, COMCAST
REPRESENTATIVE BHAVYA, COMCAST REPRESENTATIVE CURTIS
XFINITY - EXECUTIVE CUSTOMER RELATIONS, COMCAST
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE K. XFINITY - EXECUTIVE CUSTOMER
RELATIONS, COMCAST REPRESENTATIVE CHERYL L. XFINITY -
EXECUTIVE CUSTOMER RELATIONS, and CREDENCE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT CREDENCE
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, LLC AND ON CREDENCE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
March 18, 2026
STEARNS, D.J.
Defendant Credence Resource Management, LLC (CRM), is a debt
collection agency that was engaged by Xfinity Mobile (Xfinity), which is
owned by defendant Comcast Corporation (Comcast), to collect a debt that
Xfinity claimed plaintiff Philibert Kongtcheu owed to Comcast. See Notice
of Removal, Ex. A (Compl.) [Dkt # 1-1] at 14. Kongtcheu disputes the validity
of the debt. Id. at 3-9. He argues that CRM violated The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and Massachusetts debt
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 11

2
collection regulations by claiming in its collection demand that the debt was
validly owed. Compl. at 19-20. He also claims that CRM failed to provide
information required by the applicable debt collection regulations.1 Id. at
20-21. Kongtcheu now moves for summary judgment against CRM. Pl.’s
Mot. for Partial Summ. J. against CRM (Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J.) [Dkt #19]
at 1.2 CRM opposes Kongtcheu’s motion and cross-moves for summary
judgment in its favor. Def.’s Cross Opp’n [Dkt. #41] at 1.
This case began on May 28, 2025, when Kongtcheu filed suit in the
Middlesex Superior Court against CRM and six other defendants.3 It was
subsequently removed to federal court by CRM on July 1, 2025. Kongtcheu’s
disputes with the other six defendants named in the Complaint (including
1 Collectively, these alleged violations comprise Count 5 of the
Complaint. Compl. at 19-21.
2 Kongtcheu characterizes this as a motion for “partial” summary
judgment, presumably because his motion is limited to claims against CRM
and no other defendants in the case. However, for clarity, the court refers to
this as a motion for summary judgment because it pertains to all claims in
the Complaint against CRM.
3 The other defendants named in the Complaint are Comcast
Corporation, Comcast Representative X, Comcast Representative Bhavya,
Comcast Representative Curtis Xfinity - Executive Customer Relations,
Comcast Representative Gabrielle K. Xfinity - Executive Customer Relations,
and Comcast Representative Cheryl L. Xfinity - Executive Customer
Relations.
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 11

3
Comcast) were sent to arbitration, pursuant to this court’s December 30,
2025 order. [Dkt # 72].
Kongtcheu alleges that Xfinity billed him for mobile service and a
mobile device that he did not order. Compl. at 3-9. Kongtcheu challenged
Xfinity’s bills for these disputed items and did not pay them, leading Xfinity
to engage CRM to collect the debt that Xfinity claimed he owed. Id. at 14.
Kongtcheu alleges various claims that stemmed from these events and their
aftermath,4 and he seeks monetary relief as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
Id. at 15-22. For the following reasons, the court denies Kongtcheu’s motion
for summary judgment against CRM and allows CRM’s cross-motion for
summary judgment.5
4 The aftermath included Kongtcheu filing complaints with the
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable,
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Federal
Communications Commission. Id. at 11-13.
5 Following Kongtcheu’s August 21, 2025 motion for summary
judgment and CRM’s October 9, 2025 cross-motion for summary judgment,
Kongtcheu filed a motion to amend the Complaint on December 17, 2025.
[Dkt # 66]. (Kongtcheu initially moved to amend the Complaint on August
4, 2025, but this court denied the motion without prejudice because CRM
had filed a responsive pleading more than 21 days prior, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
15 (a)(1), and Kongtcheu’s motion did not include a proposed Amended
Complaint or an explanation for why the amendment was requested. [Dkt #
16]. Kongtcheu subsequently moved for an extension to amend the
Complaint by December 17, 2025, which this court granted. [Dkt # 64]. In
the course of extending the deadline, this court noted that “futile” claims
would not be appropriate. [Dkt # 30].)
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 11

4
BACKGROUND
Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile engaged CRM to collect the alleged debt
owed by Kongtcheu on October 21, 2024. Def.’s Statement of Facts [Dkt. #
41-2] at 4. Between October 23, 2024, and November 13, 2024, CRM made
The proposed amended Complaint, filed with Kongtcheu’s motion to
amend on December 17, 2025, includes several new claims against CRM.
Mot. to Amend Compl., Ex. A (Proposed Am. Compl.) [Dkt # 66-1] ¶¶ 138-
154. The court denies the motion to amend given First Circuit precedent and
the applicable federal Rule.
“A motion to amend a complaint will be treated differently depending
on its timing and the context in which it is filed.” Steir v. Girl Scouts of the
USA, 383 F.3d 7, 11-12. (1st Cir. 2004). Initially, “[c]onsent to file amended
pleadings ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires,’ unless the
amendment would be futile or reward undue delay.” Adorno v. Crowley
Towing And Transp. Co., 443 F.3d 122, 126 (1st Cir. 2006), quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). However, “[t]he bar for a plaintiff tendering an amended
complaint is higher after a motion for summary judgment has been filed, as
the plaintiff must demonstrate ‘that the proposed amendments were
supported by substantial and convincing evidence.’” Id., quoting Resolution
Trust Corp. v. Gold, 30 F.3d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1994).
Kongtcheu’s proposed Amended Complaint, filed after the motions for
summary judgment, adds the following claims against CRM, which are not
alleged in the original Complaint: violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation
of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H, 11I, violation of
M.G.L. c. 93A, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.
Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 138-154. Given the lack of substantial and
convincing support for the new claims, as well as the prejudice inherent in
their late filing, the court denies Kongtcheu’s motion to amend the
Complaint with respect to CRM.
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 11

5
frequent6 calls to Kongtcheu, but “[n]one of the calls connected to a person
and CRM did not leave any voicemails,” according to the sworn affidavit of
Denise Lewis, CRM’s Associate Vice President of Risk Compliance. Lewis
Aff. [Dkt # 77] at 2.7 Kongtcheu disputes this point, stating that he picked up
“at least one call.” Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Facts at 4.
On October 23, 2024, CRM sent a demand letter to Kongtcheu, stating
that “[w]e are trying to collect a debt that you owe to Xfinity Mobile.” Pl.’s
Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. D [Dkt #19-4] at 40. In the letter, CRM stated that
Kongtcheu owed Xfinity Mobile $404.56, but that a payment of $327.69 by
December 30, 2024, would be sufficient to “resolve your account.” Id. The
$404.56 amount referenced in CRM’s letter to Kongtcheu was consistent
with the amount included in written communications from Xfinity Mobile to
Kongtcheu on October 19, 2024, and November 22, 2024. See Id. at 20, 50.
On November 4, 2024, Kongtcheu replied to CRM in a letter, stating:
“This will serve as your legal notice pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, to cease and desist all further communication
6 Kongtcheu alleges that CRM called him 19 times whereas CRM alleges
that it made 13 unanswered calls to Kongtcheu. Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s
Statement of Facts [Dkt # 60-1] at 2.
7 Lewis’s account is based in part on CRM’s internal records of its
interactions with Kongtcheu. Id. at 2.
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 11

6
with me in regard to the above referenced debt or debts . . . . By sending this
letter it is my intention to stop all your calls and collection activity.” Id. at
42. Lewis’s affidavit states that, following CRM’s receipt of this letter, “CRM
made no further attempts to collect on the account.” Lewis Aff. at 3.
On November 21, 2024, CRM sent a final letter to Kongtcheu. See Pl.’s
Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. D at 43. CRM stated: “We have investigated your
dispute in coordination with Xfinity Mobile and verified that the charges on
your account are valid . . . . [T]his response is exclusively for the purpose of
providing information related to your dispute. We will not initiate
communication with you regarding this account any further.” Id.
Kongtcheu argues that CRM did not substantiate the validity of the
debt, as described in its letter to him, because Comcast’s internal records of
Kongtcheu’s account do not contain an entry that reflects such an effort by
CRM. Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Facts at 4. However, CRM maintains
that it did validate the debt, an undertaking reflected in its internal “Account
Information” log (the CRM Log), documenting CRM’s interactions with
Kongtcheu. Specifically, an entry dated November 20, 2024, states: “Written
Investigation Response received on: 11/19/2024 . . . investigation has
determined the charges on this account are valid.” Def.’s Cross Opp’n, Ex.
A-1 [Dkt # 41-4] at 6. Additionally, Lewis’s affidavit cites the CRM Log and
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 6 of 11

7
states: “On November 19, 2024, Xfinity Mobile notified CRM the charges
were valid.” Lewis Aff. at 3.
Kongtcheu alleges that CRM subsequently reported his default to
credit agencies. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 4. As evidence to support this
claim, Kongtcheu points to the CRM Log, which includes two entries that are
dated April 28, 2025. Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt # 60] at
5-6. These entries include Kongtcheu’s address and state
“BILL_TO_ADDRESS: PHILIBERT KONGTCHEU” and
“CES_CUSTOMER : PHILIBERT KONGTCHEU.” See Def.’s Cross Opp’n,
Ex. A-1 at 3. Kongtcheu alleges that the date of this entry in CRM’s “Account
Information” log coincides with a drop in his credit rating. Pl.’s Reply in
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 5-6. In addition, he states in a sworn affidavit
that he “submitted an online credit card application with Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A,” which denied the application. Pl. Aff. [Dkt. # 46-1] at 1. He
subsequently contacted the consumer credit reporting company Experian,
which informed him that “an adverse credit event related to a Comcast/CRM
account appeared” on his credit report. Id. However, CRM denies reporting
Kongtcheu to any credit agency. Def.’s Cross Mot., Statement of Material
Facts [Dkt # 41-2] at 3. CRM supports its position by citing Lewis’s affidavit,
which attests to this fact. Lewis Aff. at 3.
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 7 of 11

8
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]he mere existence
of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986) (emphases in original). A
material fact is one which has the “potential to affect the outcome of the suit
under applicable law.” Nereida-Gonzalez v. Tirado-Delgado, 990 F.2d 701,
703 (1st Cir. 1993). In assessing the genuineness of a material dispute, the
facts are to be “viewed in the light most flattering to the party opposing the
motion.” Nat’l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st
Cir. 1995).
ANALYSIS
Kongtcheu’s Complaint alleges that CRM’s actions violated federal and
state debt collection laws.8 First, Kongtcheu claims that CRM violated 15
8 Kongtcheu’s Motion for Summary Judgment raises additional
theories of liability, which are also included in the proposed Amended
Complaint. However, the court’s review is limited to the claims included in
the original Complaint. See supra note 5.
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 8 of 11

9
U.S.C. § 1692e (2)(A), which prohibits “the false representation of . . . the
character, amount, or legal status of any debt by a debt collector.” Compl. at
19. While Kongtcheu disputes whether CRM definitively validated his debt
with Comcast, CRM’s representation of the “character,” “amount,” and “legal
status” of the debt were consistent with the information provided to CRM by
Comcast.9 As a result, Kongtcheu has not sufficiently alleged a violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1692e (2)(A).
Kongtcheu also claims that CRM violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (b) and
940 Mass. Code Regs. § 7.08, which require that a debt collector who has
been timely notified by a consumer that a debt is disputed “cease collection
of the debt,” until the collector provides additional materials to the
consumer, including verification of the debt. Kongtcheu highlights that,
among the materials that a debt collector is required to provide a debtor
before resuming collection activity under 940 Mass. Code Regs. § 7.08 are
“all documents, including electronic records or images, which bear the
signature of the debtor and which concern the debt being collected.” He
9 The validity of the information provided by Comcast will be resolved
in the course of the mediation taking place between Kongtcheu and the six
other defendants in this case, pursuant to this court’s order. See [Dkt # 72].
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 9 of 11

10
writes that CRM did not provide him with these materials.10 Compl. at 20.
Kongtcheu does not provide evidence that CRM engaged in additional
communication with him after receiving his letter asking that CRM cease its
collection efforts. As a result, CRM has not yet incurred an obligation to
provide the required materials to him. Therefore, Kongtcheu has not alleged
violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (b) and 940 Mass. Code Regs. § 7.08.11
There is no dispute of the material facts with respect to Kongtcheu’s
allegations against CRM. Moreover, viewing all facts in the light most
favorable to Kongtcheu, CRM is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ORDER
10 In addition, 940 Mass. Code Regs. § 7.08 requires that debt
collectors provide certain information within five days of initiating
communication with debtors. It is undisputed that CRM’s first letter to
Kongtcheu, sent on October 23, 2024, contained the required information.
Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. D at 40.
11 Kongtcheu’s Complaint states that CRM’s alleged violations of the
FDCPA – specifically the alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e (2)(A),
1692g (b) – mean that CRM “is co-contributor to, and jointly liable” for the
alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by several other
defendants named in the case. Compl. at 20. To support this claim,
Kongtcheu cites 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, which holds debt collectors who violate
the FDCPA liable for “any actual damage sustained by such person as a result
of such failure,” and argues it applies to CRM. However, the court does not
find the underlying violations of the FDCPA that would support a theory of
joint liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. (As noted previously, the court denies
Kongtcheu’s motion to amend the Complaint against CRM to include a direct
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.)
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 10 of 11

11
For the forgoing reasons, Kongtcheu’s motion for summary judgment
is DENIED, and CRM’s cross-motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-11869-RGS Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 11 of 11