A federal judge in New Jersey has dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit against a collection agency, saying the type of debt being collected does not fall under the coverage of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
This was the second time that Judge John Michael Vazquez had dismissed a complaint at the request of the defendant.
In this case, the plaintiff filed suit after receiving a collection letter for an unpaid toll. Even though the plaintiff had a transponder, known as an E-ZPass, in his vehicle, the device was not properly scanned, which led to the unpaid toll and the subsequent letter from the defendant seeking payment.
The plaintiffs alleged that statements made in the collection letter violated the FDCPA because they were false and misleading.
A copy of the ruling in Aron Rosenzweig v. Transworld Systems can be accessed by clicking here.
The issue at hand is what constitutes a debt under the FDCPA. The law defines a debt as :
any obligation or alleged obligation of consumer pay money arising out of transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced judgment.
The Court had previously addressed the topic of whether an E-ZPass toll was a debt in dismissing the first complaint filed by the plaintiff in this case, but allowed the plaintiff to submit a second amended complaint, which essentially made the same arguments as the first one.
In referencing a previous ruling on an E-ZPass case, Judge Vazquez quoted one of his colleagues on the bench in saying that tolls are not debts because they are similar to revenue generated by taxes, which benefit the public at large.
“Therefore, the court held the requirement “to pay tolls” does not arise from a a transaction that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and is not a debt.”
This is not the first time that E-ZPass tolls have been ruled to be outside of the coverage of the FDCPA. In St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
