A Magistrate judge in Texas has recommended that a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against a first-party debt collector be dismissed because the plaintiff did not do enough to argue that the defendant meets the definition of debt collector under the statute.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Demarquis v. Alorica can be accessed by clicking here.
This all started back in 2019 when the plaintiff began receiving calls from a creditor seeking to recover an unpaid credit card debt. The plaintiff initiated an arbitration proceeding against the creditor, during which the creditor informed the plaintiff that the defendant made the calls in question on the creditor’s behalf and in the creditor’s name. An arbitrator ruled in favor of the creditor, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiff then turned around and filed suit against the defendant, alleging it violated the FDCPA and the Texas Debt Collection Act in relation to the calls that were made.
With respect to the FDCPA claims, the plaintiff made nothing more than “unsupported allegations” that the defendant was a debt collector, as far as the FDCPA defines the term, according to Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin of the District Court for the Western District of Texas. In his complaint, the plaintiff claimed the defendant was a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA and included the statutory definition — someone who “uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the mail in its business – the principal purpose of which is the collection of debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” But that was not enough, Judge Austin determined.
Citing other precedents requiring more than “a formulaic recitation” and “threadbare recitals,” Judge Austin granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and also recommended that the plaintiff not be granted leave to amend his complaint.
