A District Court judge has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that while the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, the merits of the case warranted the ruling as well and that using a word other than “validation” when responding to a verification request is not a violation of the statute. The judge did deny a motion from the defendant to have its attorney’s fees covered by the pro se plaintiff.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Papadimitriou v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter in regard to a pair of credit card accounts from the original creditor. The plaintiff submitted a dispute and demanded validation of each debt, but allegedly never received them. The accounts were placed with the defendant, which also sent letters demanding payment, and although the plaintiff was feeling anxious, harassed, and irritated with the letters, he sent a second dispute and demanded validation again. This time, the defendant sent back a substantiation of the debt, including the opening date of both credit accounts and the outstanding amounts owed, a copy of the signed contract or signed application; or the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, payment or balance transfer, the charge-off account statement.
After first ruling the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury and did not have standing to sue, Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall of of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York looked at the merits of the case and determined the plaintiff’s argument failed there, as well. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s “substantiation letter” was a violation of the FDCPA because it was not a “validation letter” as required by the statute. But, wrote Judge Hall, “All that is required for verification is a written statement from the creditor claiming what debt is owed and the identity of the person who owes the debt. The exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s original complaints support this finding. Defendants’ use of the word ‘substantiation’ rather than ‘validation’ is of no moment.”
Judge Hall did determine that the plaintiff did not file his complaint in bad faith or with the intention to harass the defendant and denied the defendant’s motion for sanctions.
