Murphy v. Bureau Investments Group Portfolio, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DARNELL MURPHY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:24CV1433 HEA
)
BUREAU INVESTMENTS 	)
GROUP PORTFOLIO, LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment,
[Doc. No.’s 56 and 62]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Cross Motion
will be granted.
Facts and Background
On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a Borrower Agreement (the
“Agreement”) with Blue Ridge Bank (“BRB”) and Upgrade, Inc. (“UI”), as
servicer, to secure a loan for $6,000.00. Plaintiff electronically signed and
delivered the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (the “Note”) to Blue Ridge
Bank, evidencing the $6,000.00 loan. Plaintiff was required to make several
monthly installment payments beginning on May 1, 2022.
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The terms of the Agreement and Note authorized BRB and UI to assign or
transfer all or a portion of the Note and the related documents to a third party or an
affiliate and their rights under the Note inured to the benefit of their successors
and assigns and Plaintiff’s obligations under the Note are binding upon his heirs,
personal representatives and permitted assigns.
On July 5, 2023, UI sent Murphy a “Past-Due Notice” informing him that
$770.88 on his loan was 95 days past due and would be charged off and reported to
Credit Reporting Agencies unless arrangements were made.
On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff’s loan was sold, transferred, or otherwise
assigned to Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC. Plaintiff was made
aware of the sale and assignment of his loan from UI to Defendant pursuant
to the “Goodbye Letter” UI mailed to Plaintiff on or about August 27, 2023.
Shortly after BIG 15 purchased Plaintiff’s loan in August 2023, The
Bureaus, Inc. (“TBI”) reported an “open collection account” to the Credit
Reporting Agencies and hired independent contractors/debt collection agencies
(“Collectors”) to attempt to collect the amounts due and owing from Plaintiff. The
first of Defendant’s Collectors, Superlative RM (“SRM”), emailed Plaintiff on
September 8, 2023, informing him that it was attempting to collect the debt on BIG
15’s behalf in the amount of $6,052.18. Between November 2, 2023, and
December 22, 2023, SRM sent Plaintiff three follow-up emails encouraging him to
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
make arrangements to resolve his debt; the last email offered a reduced amount of
$3,570.79.
On January 10, 2024, Defendant’s second Collector, Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC (“ARS”), sent Plaintiff a letter stating that Plaintiff had until
February 22, 2024, to dispute all or part of the debt. Between January 10, 2024 and
February 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent ARS a letter disputing his debt and asking for
verification. In response, ARS ceased collection activity and on February 20, 2024,
verified Plaintiff’s debt by providing him with the names of the original and
current creditors, current balance, and copies of the Credit Profile Authorization
Agreement, ACH Authorization Agreement, E-Sign Act Consent Agreement, Truth
in Lending Act Disclosure, electronically signed Note, Payment History, and
Privacy Notice Policy.
Defendant also began reporting Plaintiff’s account as “disputed” to the
Credit Reporting Agencies beginning with the March 16, 2024, reporting cycle
through as late as November 17, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, Defendant’s third Collector, First National Collection
Bureau, Inc. (“FNCB”), received another dispute/validation request from Plaintiff.
In response, FNCB ceased collection activities to investigate the dispute, and on
July 18, 2024, FNCB verified Plaintiff’s debt by providing him with the names of
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the original and current creditors, current balance, and copies of the Truth in
Lending Act Disclosure, electronically signed Note, and Payment History.
On August 1, 2024, FNCB received another letter from Plaintiff disputing
his debt and requesting verification. In response, FNCB referred Plaintiff to the
documents included with the July 18, 2024, letter verify his debt.
On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff sent letters to the Federal Trade Commission,
Missouri Attorney General’s Office, and the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”)
complaining that Defendant failed to prove the loan account belonged to him and
that if Defendant failed to provide him with any viable evidence bearing his wet
ink signature, showing the account is being reported accurately he would bring suit
against the collecting company as well as the original creditor for all applicable
damages, as well as for statutory penalties provided under the FDCPA and FCRA.
20. In its responses to the Missouri Attorney General’s Office and the BBB,
Defendant explained that the account was originally an Upgrade, Inc. on behalf of
Blue Ridge Bank account opened on 04/01/2022 in the amount of $6,000.00. The
last payment on the account was in the amount of $187.72 on 03/01/2023. The
account was charged off on 07/29/2023 in the amount of $6,052.18. Defendant
further specified that producing a wet ink signature would be impossible because
Plaintiff’s account was opened on the internet; therefore, an E-signature was
captured. A copy of the agreements and notices provided to the consumer and to
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Defendant by Upgrade, Inc on behalf of Blue Ridge Bank were attached to the
response. Defendant also stated that upon notice of the dispute in February 2024,
The Bureaus, Inc updated its records and subsequently notified the credit reporting
companies that the account was disputed, as is required by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and that upon receipt of the Missouri Attorney General complaint in
August 2024, it updated its records to restrict communication attempts with
Darnell Murphy. This dispute had been determined to be duplicative. It was
substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by the consumer
for which it already satisfied validation requirements and did not include any
material information to support the dispute, its investigation found the information
disputed to be accurate.
On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et
seq. when it sent letters to Plaintiff regarding the default on his debt, its intent to
collect that debt, reporting Plaintiff’s default to the Credit Reporting Agencies
while the account was disputed, and Defendant’s purported failure to establish its
ownership of Plaintiff’s debt.
Summary Judgment Standard
“[S]ummary judgment is proper ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A party moving for summary judgment
bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue exists as to any material
fact. Id. at 323. A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” and a fact is material if it “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “The moving party can satisfy its burden in either
of two ways: it can produce evidence negating an essential element of the
nonmoving party's case, or it can show that the nonmoving party does not have
enough evidence of an essential element of its claim to carry its ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial.” Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)).
When the moving party meets this burden, “the adverse party ‘must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. at 250 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The “party opposing a properly
supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or
denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 256 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “The evidence of
the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
his favor.” Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59
(1970)).
In addition to the requirements of Rule 56, this Court's Local Rule 4.01(E)
addresses a non-moving party's duties in opposing a moving party's Statement of
Material Facts:
Every memorandum in opposition must be accompanied by a document
titled Response to Statement of Material Facts, which must be separately
filed using the filing event “Response to Statement of Material Facts.” The
Response must set forth each relevant fact as to which the party contends a
genuine issue exists. The facts in dispute shall be set forth with specific
citation(s) to the record, where available, upon which the opposing party
relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph
number from the moving party's Statement of Uncontroverted Material
Facts. All matters set forth in the moving party's Statement of
Uncontroverted Material Facts shall be deemed admitted for purposes of
summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.
E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(E).
Discussion
The FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., was enacted “to eliminate abusive
debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who
refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively
disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against
debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). The FDCPA regulates the collection
of “debts” by “debt collectors” by regulating the number and type of contacts a
debt collector may make with a debtor. In order to establish civil liability under the
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
FDCPA, a plaintiff must prove that: “(1) the plaintiff has been the object of
collection activity arising from a consumer debt; (2) the defendant is a debt
collector as defined by the FDCPA; [and] (3) the defendant has engaged in an act
or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Zelkowitz v. Avant, LLC, No. 25-CV-850
(SRN/DLM), 2025 WL 3237906, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2025); Kowouto v.
Jellum Law, P.A., 672 F.Supp.3d 699, 702 (D. Minn. 2023); Mayfield v. Portfolio
Recovery Assocs., LLC, 553 F. Supp. 3d 676, 683 (D. Minn. 2021).
Defendant has set forth detailed evidence establishing its right to collect the
debt. The uncontroverted evidence includes the promissory note, the E-Signature
agreement, a clear chain of title, valid assignments establishing Defendant’s right
to collect the debt. Likewise, Defendant properly validated the debt each time
Plaintiff sought validation and ceased collection efforts when Plaintiff disputed the
debt. Indeed, Plaintiff admits the collection procedures were proper by attaching to
his motion for summary judgement the detailed facts of the procedures that
occurred with regard to the collection of the amount due under the loan.
In contrast, Plaintiff has presented no evidence supporting his allegations
that “the defendant has engaged in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA.”
Kowouto, 672 F.Supp.3d at 702. “Impermissible practices” for purposes of the
FDCPA “include harassing, oppressive or abusive conduct; false, deceptive or
misleading representations; and unfair or unconscionable collection methods.”
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2001)
(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692d-f). Plaintiff’s completely conclusory accusations fail to
rise to the level of establishing a genuine dispute as to any material fact.
Without more, no reasonable jury could find that Defendant violated the FDCPA.
Indeed, the meticulous steps taken regarding Plaintiff’s loan unequivocally
establish the validity of Defendant’s actions. The documents establish that
plaintiff's account was validly sold pursuant to the terms of the loan agreement.
Because the sale was valid, Defendant did not violate the FDCPA in attempting to
collect on Plaintiff's debt. Gallamore v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 1:24-
CV-00148-SNLJ, 2025 WL 1809794, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 1, 2025)
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the undisputed material facts establish Plaintiff’s
claims of violations of the FDCPA are without merit.
Accordingly
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment, [Doc. No. 56], is GRANTED.
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Opinion, Memorandum, and
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Order.
Dated this 9 th day of January, 2026.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-01433-HEA Doc. #: 87 Filed: 01/09/26 Page: 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>