EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A defendant has removed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F originally filed in Florida state court to federal court, after it was accused of sending a Model Validation Notice that did not identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed on the itemization date, even though there was a disclosure at the top of the notice that said the defendant “is a debt collector and is the creditor to whom the debt is currently owed.”
A copy of the complaint, removed to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, can be accessed using case number 22-cv-62074 or by clicking here.
The debt in question appears to be a retail credit card debt that was in the name of Wawa, but was actually issued by Citibank. In the itemization table, the Notice says, “You had a WAWA account from Citibank N.A.” At the top of the Notice, after the disclosure mentioned above the plaintiff was informed that “We are trying to collect a debt that you previously owed to Citibank N.A. and which was sold to [the defendant] by Citibank N.A.”
The plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA and Regulation F because the Notice did not identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed on the itemization date. The Notice includes an itemization date, the complaint notes, but not the identity of the creditor to whom the debt was owed.
The complaint accused the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f, and 1692g of the FDCPA as a result of the alleged Regulation F violations.
