A District Court judge in New York has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the $3,000 that the plaintiff spent to hire an attorney to represent him after he received what appeared to be a post-judgment deposition subpoena is enough for the plaintiff to have standing to pursue his claim.
The Background: In December 2016, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant at his address in Florida. The letter contained what appeared to be a post-judgment subpoena which was issued in relation to a $13,990,98 judgment in a New York City Civil Court Case. The subpoena demanded the plaintiff appear for a deposition in New York on December 26, which was a federal holiday. The subpoena stated that failure to comply “is punishable as a contempt of court” and indicated “FINAL Notice” across each page.
- The plaintiff then hired an attorney to defend him against the judgment for a flat fee of $3,000. The attorney followed up with the defendant, who said he would send the underlying court file, but never did. The plaintiff’s attorney sent a follow-up email, but never heard back. The plaintiff’s attorney wasn’t able to identify the underlying action identified in the subpoena and conferred with the New York City Clerk’s office who also could not identify the underlying action.
- The plaintiff filed suit and was earlier granted summary motion on two of the FDCPA claims.
- Last year, the defendants raised the issue of whether the plaintiff had standing to sue and then filed the motion to dismiss the remaining claims.
The Ruling: It didn’t take long for Judge Nelson S. Roman of the District Court for the Southern District of New York to determine that the $3,000 the plaintiff spent to hire an attorney to defend against what appeared to be a fake unlawful subpoena is enough for him to have standing to sue.
- “The cost incurred by Plaintiff of hiring an attorney to defend him against the Morrison Judgment is sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement,” Judge Roman wrote in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
