A District Court judge in Georgia has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because she forgot one of the most important components of an FDCPA claim.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Abdullah v. Contract Callers can be accessed by clicking here.
Judge J. Randall Hall of the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division had previously dismissed claims made by the plaintiff that the defendant had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making “repeated” calls to collect on an unpaid cell phone bill after requesting for them to stop.
The plaintiff claimed she repeatedly asked the defendant to stop calling her, having received “several” phone calls during a three-month period in the Spring of 2019. The plaintiff also claimed to have asked the defendant to verify the debt and that the defendant failed to send a validation notice as required by the FDCPA. The plaintiff claimed the repeated calls constituted “harassment” under the FDCPA and sought to have the item removed from her credit report as well as be compensated for her lost time and her suffering.
But in filing her complaint, she left out one crucial detail. She forgot to include any facts that established the defendant as a debt collector under the FDCPA, other than alleging they placed phone calls regarding a debt in some capacity. There was nothing in the complain that Judge Hall could use to infer that the defendant fell within the definition of “debt collector” under the FDCPA. “Even when construed liberally, there are not enough allegations to suggest Contract Callers is in the aforementioned business or regularly collects or attempts to collect debts,” Judge Hall wrote.
Even still, Judge Hall took the step of analyzing whether the claims made by the plaintiff rose to the level of constituting harassment under the FDCPA. Again, the plaintiff’s argument fell short, Judge Hall ruled. In order to constitute harassment, the collector’s actions must intend to annoy, abuse, or harass and the plaintiff failed to provide any facts to substantiate that claim. As well, the plaintiff failed to state a claim that alleged the defendant failed to provide meaningful disclosure of its identity, especially since the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.
For all of these reasons, and a few more, Judge Hall granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
