Dumas v. Transfinancial

── Dumas v. Transfinancial ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: Private Civil Federal Case: 25-30473 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 1, 2026 No. 25-30473 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Joelson Dumas, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Transfinancial Companies, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:24-CV-911 ______________________________ Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Joelson Dumas sued Transfinancial Companies, L.L.C., for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Because Dumas’ brief fails to address his only live claim, we affirm summary judgment for Transfinancial. Dumas discovered two debts on his credit report. He mailed a letter to the debt collection company, Transfinancial, refusing to pay the debts and _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30473 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 No. 25-30473 instructing Transfinancial not to contact him about the debts. Transfinancial received the letter on May 24, 2024, and noted on Dumas’ account not to contact him. On June 4, Transfinancial received two letters from Dumas disputing the debts and instructing Transfinancial to conduct an investigation. On June 7 and 25, Transfinancial sent Dumas two letters “solely for the purpose of responding to [his] dispute,” stating that it investigated the debts, determined that they are valid, and would continue collection efforts. It further stated: “If you have requested that Transfinancial stop contacting you, this will be the final communication that you receive from Transfinancial unless you send Transfinancial subsequent communication that requires a response.” Dumas sued Transfinancial for violating the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p. His complaint alleged that Transfinancial’s June 7 and 25 letters violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) because it “continued collection efforts” after “receiving written communication from [Dumas] to cease communications regarding the subject debt.” Transfinancial moved for summary judgment. Dumas responded, asserting for the first time that Transfinancial’s June 7 and 25 letters violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed Dumas’ claim. The court found that no claim under § 1692g(b) was before it and that Transfinancial did not violate § 1692c(c) because Dumas requested that Transfinancial verify the debts, thus waiving his cease-communication directive. Dumas appealed. The FDCPA protects consumers from certain abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1692; Marx v. Gen. Rev. Corp., 568 U.S. 371, 374 n.1 (2013). Because Congress “intended the FDCPA to have a broad remedial scope,” it should “be construed broadly and in favor of the consumer.” Salinas v. R.A. Rogers, Inc., 952 F.3d 680, 683 2 Case: 25-30473 Document: 47-1 Page: 3 Date