A plaintiff has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Florida law office, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the validation notice indicated the individual had 35 days in which to dispute the debt.
A copy of the complaint in the case of Gabbai v. The Law Office of Catherine Roselli can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff incurred a medical debt which was placed with the defendant’s office, according to the complaint. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter, which included the following information: “Unless you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion within 35 days of receipt of this notice, we will assume the debt is valid as stated. If you write and dispute this debt, or any portion of it, within 35 days, we will obtain and mail verification of the debt, or a copy of the judgment, whichever is applicable. Upon written request, within the same 35 days, we will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
What will not help the defendant’s case is that the letter included a second page with additional disclosures. In those disclosures, the 30-day window to dispute a debt is mentioned six times.
The plaintiff is alleging the defendant violated Section 1692(e) of the FDCPA by making false or misleading statements and Section and 1692(g) by extending the 30-day dispute window to 35 days.
In filing a class-action, the plaintiffs are seeking to include any other individuals who were sent similar letters by the defendant.
