A District Court judge in Nevada has granted summary judgment in favor of a collection agency that was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the communications cited as the alleged violation are not covered under the law.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Arellano v. Clark County Collection Service can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a summons informing her that she had 20 days to respond to the complaint, while the complaint told her she had 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the 20-day deadline to answer the complaint overshadowed the 30-day deadline to dispute the debt. The judge in the case ruled that neither the summons nor the complaint are covered communications under the FDCPA.
The plaintiff did not dispute the debt, nor did she file a response to the summons, at which point a default judgment was entered against her.
Because the summons made no reference to the plaintiff’s debt, the defendant argued it should not be considered a communication under the FDCPA. Even if it were considered a communication, the judge said she would “have to apply a bizarre, idiosyncratic, or peculiar interpretation of it to find it likely to deceive or mislead a least-sophisticated debtor of her rights.”
