owed or due another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) see Franceschi v. Mautner-Glick Corp., 22 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Plaintiffs’ Fourth Count alleges that Defendants Rawlings, HRI, and Ingenix (“Subrogation Agent Defendants”) violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Am. Compl. ¶ 132.) In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Subrogation Agent Defendants — acting on behalf of health insurance carriers — “provided subrogation services” through Claims Recovery Service Agreements, “acted as a debt collector” and “undertook various collection efforts in violation of FDCPA,” included but not limited to Sections 804(6), 805(a)(2), 807(2), 807(5), 807(10), 807(11) and 809. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 28, 33, 34, 59, 77). Further, Plain -116-A, 2005 WL 6075786 (M.D.La. Apr. 13, 2005) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the documents supporting the
holding that debt collector violated fdcpa when it held debtor liable for court costs that had not yet been awarded holding that it was not possible for plaintiff to be in default until he began receiving payments from third parties and therefore finding that hri a codefendant in this case was not a debt collector under the fdcpa holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that rawlings  a codefendant in the present action  is not a debt collector within the meaning of the fdcpa holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt