A District Court judge in Nevada has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not ceasing to collect on an unpaid debt after the plaintiff disputed it, because the plaintiff did not file the dispute in writing.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Nguyen v. Plusfour, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff filed suit after attempting to dispute a debt over the phone with the defendant. When requesting validation, the defendant told the plaintiff it would cost $10 to validate the debt or that validation could be provided once the debt was paid. The plaintiff did not pay the debt or the $10 fee, and the defendant continued to try and collect on the debt.
Because the dispute was not filed in writing, Judge James Mahan of the District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the plaintiff had not “plausibly pleaded an FDCPA violation” and dismissed the claim.
The plaintiff also sought leave to amend the complaint to make other allegations of how the defendant may have violated the FDCPA, by requiring the dispute to be filed in writing, by requiring payment prior to verifying the debt, and by reporting information to the credit bureaus without reporting that the debt was being disputed, but Judge Mahan denied the motion to amend the complaint.
