A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss on all counts but one in a class-action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the allegations that the amount of a debt was mis-stated in a letter can not be ruled on at this stage in the process.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Saldana v. Resurgent Capital Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant seeking to collect on an unpaid credit card debt that had been sold to a third party. The third party sent the letter, but the plaintiff claims to have not recognized the name of the lender and that the amount that was owed was mis-stated. The letter included the name of the original creditor, but did not indicate that the debt had been sold or transferred to the current creditor.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Sections 1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA because it did not accurately state the amount that was owed and Sections 1692, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692e(10) because the plaintiff claimed he did not owe the money to the current creditor named in the letter.
Because the plaintiff claimed he did not owe the amount that was cited in the letter, Judge Brian Martinotti of the District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that was sufficient “to amount to an false representation” at this stage in the case. As for not explaining the relationship or how the current creditor came to own the debt in question, Judge Martinotti noted that such a disclosure is not required under the FDCPA.
“Plaintiff’s contention that he does not know who or what LVNV Funding is, and is not indebted in any way to such an entity does not render Defendant’s debt collection efforts ‘false,’ ‘deceptive,’ or ‘misleading,’ ” Judge Martinotti wrote. “Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the Letter failed to effectively communicate or mislead him as to the identity of the current creditor.”
