A District Court judge in Colorado has denied a defendant’s motion for reconsideration and a motion to certify a matter for interlocutory appeal in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit, disagreeing with the defendant’s argument that there has been a change in the controlling law since the original motion to dismiss was denied.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Warden v. Tschetter Sulzer can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant filed an eviction lawsuit and collection proceeding against the plaintiff on behalf of the landlord who owned the building. The defendant sent an email to the plaintiff that included a “Stipulation and Advisement.” The document informed the plaintiff that she had 10 days to work out the situation with her landlord or move out. The document also informed the plaintiff she could ask for more time to vacate the property, but that it was up to the landlord to grant that request. Finally, the document said that if the plaintiff moved out before the agreed-upon move-out date in the document, it triggered the defendant’s “obligation to vacate any possession judgment and dismiss your case. Thus, by signing and complying with a Stipulation, you are guaranteed not to have an eviction judgment (judgment for possession) on record with the Court.”
Attempting to use the December ruling in Shields v. Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant argued the plaintiff lacked standing because she did not act on the letters that she received. But, Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the District Court for the District of Colorado noted, the plaintiff chose to vacate her premises early, with the expectation that any judgment would be vacated and any money claim would be dismissed. “The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged reliance to her detriment upon the Stipulation and Advisement that was sent by Defendant and therefore has suffered a concrete injury in fact that results in an alleged statutory violation and, therefore, has Article III standing,” Judge Sweeney wrote.
The defendant also attempted to have the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit weigh in on whether a stipulation limited to the issue of possession in a residential eviction proceeding is made in connection with the collection of a debt under the FDCPA, but Judge Sweeney sided with the plaintiff that the issue of whether the stipulation was solely limited to the issue of possession is in dispute. “Ultimately, the Court concludes that this is not the exceedingly rare case where Defendant cannot resolve the claims before seeking appellate review,” Judge Sweeney wrote.
