A federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by a collection law firm, opining that the plaintiff’s arguments about a collection letter being misleading are “idiosyncratic.”
A copy of the ruling in the case of Rueda v. Foster & Garbus can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. In the letter, the defendant stated:
“At this time we are only acting as a debt collector. Attorneys may act as debt collectors. Our firm will not commence a suit against you. However, if we are not able to resolve this account with you, our client may consider additional remedies to recover the balance due.”
The defendant is not licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois, where the plaintiff resides, so she filed a lawsuit, alleging that the letter was deceptive and violated Section 1692e of the FDCPA because it insinuates the defendant has chosen not to file suit when it fact it is not capable of doing do, and because it threatens legal action that can not be taken.
On the first count, that the language “our firm will not commence a suit against you,” the judge ruled that the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant is implying it could file a lawsuit but has chosen not to do so to “make little sense.” Wrote Judge Ronald Guzman of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:
The language is a negative promise that Forster will refrain from taking legal action; it is simply not reasonably construed as a comment on any reason behind the promise or an implication of choice. On its face, Forster’s promise that it would not sue plaintiff would not lead even an unsophisticated consumer to believe the opposite—that Forster was threatening legal action.
Next, the judge shot down the argument that the language “our client may consider additional remedies to recover the balance due” to be idiosyncratic as well, saying:
The sentence concerning Forster’s client, read in its context of Forster’s promise not to sue, contrasts Forster with its client, and states that the client may consider additional remedies to collect the debt. Plaintiff’s theory is that the statement deceptively suggests that Forster may sue plaintiff, but that is not a reasonable reading when the entire statement explicitly states the contrary.
