A District Court judge in Connecticut has dismissed a laundry list of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims made by a plaintiff against a collection law firm, but denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on one of the claims, which can be used to serve as a reminder to collectors to make sure you include information from the right account when sending debt verification information to a consumer.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Rivera v. Zwicker & Associates can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received collection notices from the defendant in regards to four different credit card debts all from the same credit card company. The plaintiff requested validation information for each of the four debts from the defendant. The defendant responded to each of the requests by informing the plaintiff it was including copies of statements and other relevant documentation to serve as validation of the debt. It included statements for three of the four accounts that were disputed by the plaintiff, but allegedly attached the wrong credit card statements for the fourth account, instead attaching statements for a different account for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sent a demand letter for $40,000 based on his belief that the defendant had violated various provisions of the FDCPA and then filed suit. Among the many claims made by the plaintiff, which were dismissed by Judge Michael P. Shea of the District Court for the District of Connecticut, were that the defendant violated Section 1692b of the FDCPA because it mentioned in its letters that it was trying to collect a debt, Section 1692c because the defendant allegedly communicated with the plaintiff without his permission or the permission of the court, and Section 1692d because the defendant allegedly used obscene or profane language when it said “this is an attempt to collect a debt” in the letters. There were more claims made by the plaintiff that Judge Shea dismissed, I just didn’t want to list them all here.
The one claim that Judge Shea did not dismiss was an allegation that the defendant violated Section 1692g(b) when it sent validation information for the wrong account. The defendant argued that the plaintiff submitted the validation request after the 30-day period had expired, but at this stage of the case, Judge Shea is required to assume that all the information in the complaint is true so he ruled “that it is at least plausible that the requests were timely.”
