Class Action Accuses Collector of Requiring Reason to Accept Dispute

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.

DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.

The defendant in a class-action lawsuit that was filed in Florida state court has removed the case to federal court in The Sunshine State, arguing that because the complaint accuses the defendant of violating federal law – the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – that federal court has jurisdiction. The complaint accuses the defendant of not accepting a dispute from the plaintiff unless the plaintiff indicated why he was disputing the debt.

A copy of the complaint, which was removed to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-23731 or by clicking here.

The complaint accuses the defendant of violating the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and seeks to include anyone else who was told they needed a reason in order to dispute a debt that the defendant was attempting to collect.

The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. Within the 30-day window to dispute the debt, the plaintiff allegedly contacted the defendant via the telephone and disputed the validity of the debt. The complaint alleges the representative from the defendant refused to accept the dispute unless the plaintiff provided a reason why the debt was being disputed. The complaint does not say whether the plaintiff provided a reason or whether he ended the call without doing so.

The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692g of the FDCPA, as well as provisions of the FCCPA.

Check Also

Settlement Offer, Tradeline Deletion Mention in Letter Leads to Class Action Against Collector

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

X