Judge Partially Grants MTD in FDCPA Case Over Wrong Debt On Plaintiff’s Credit Report

A District Court judge in Arizona has partially granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by furnishing information to the credit reporting agencies that did not belong the plaintiff.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Taylor v. IC System can be accessed by clicking here.

Background: The plaintiff saw that the defendant was reporting a collection account to the credit reporting agencies for a debt he did not recognize. He contacted the defendant and a representative was unable to locate the plaintiff through his personal identifiers. The representative told the plaintiff that the debt was a medical debt incurred in Alabama and was owed by a third party with a different name and Social Security number.

  • The defendant disputed the debt with the credit reporting agency and the defendant continued to furnish information about the debt to the CRAs and did not note the account as disputed, according to the plaintiff.

The Claims: The plaintiff claims the defendant violated Sections 1692e(8) and 1692f of the FDCPA.

The Ruling: The defendant claimed it did not violate Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA because it was the credit reporting agency that connected the underlying debt to the plaintiff’s credit report, not the defendant. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff did not provide the defendant with enough time to mark the account as disputed before filing the suit in question, but Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson of the District Court for the District of Arizona ruled the plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ultimately, there is nothing in Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA that says reporting of a debt must be to a credit report as opposed to any third party, Judge Jorgenson ruled.

On the claim that the defendant violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA, though, Judge Jorgenson did grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the underlying conduct was already covered in the 1692e(8) claim.

Check Also

Appeals Court Vacates Dismissal of TCPA Class Action, Remands Case to Determine Standing

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has vacated the dismissal of a Telephone …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X