A plaintiff has learned that more is not always better when it comes to making accusations against a debt collector for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Trying to claim that just about every statement in a collection letter or validation notice is a violation of the FDCPA did not survive a motion to dismiss from the defendant.
The Background: The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant, identifying itself as a collector and informing the plaintiff that it was trying to collect a debt owed to a creditor. The letter included the standard validation notice.
What Happened Next: The plaintiff disputed the debt and then filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The plaintiff also sent several letters to the defendant, restating his allegations against the agency and requesting that this matter be settled.
- Perhaps not surprising to anyone, the plaintiff filed this complaint on his own, accusing the defendant of violating multiple sections of the FDCPA as well as the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, more commonly known as RICO.
The Ruling: This is one of those cases where a plaintiff claims the defendant violates the FDCPA by using obscene or vulgar language because it refers to itself as a debt collector, and because the defendant did not have the plaintiff’s permission to communicate with him. If you’ve been around long enough, you get what kind of complaint this is.
To his credit, Judge Michael P. Shea of the District Court for the District of Connecticut goes through each claim, one by one, and details why the motion to dismiss should be granted. He could have pointed to the fact that the plaintiff did not claim to be a consumer and the defendant was attempting to collect on a debt, but Judge Shea chose to rule on the merits of each claim, however bizarre they were. In some cases, the allegations were actually requirements under the FDCPA. For example, the plaintiff claimed the defendant violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA by using the creditor’s name in the letter, because it’s a name other than the true name of the debt collector. But, as Judge Shea pointed out, Section 1692g requires collectors to provide consumers with the identity of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.
