The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the response to an email from the plaintiff did not constitute an initial communication under the statute.
The Background: Back in 2019, a judgment was entered against the plaintiff for failure to pay rent. The plaintiff alleges she did not learn of the judgment for two years after sending an email to her landlord claiming she was having technical difficulties making a payment through the online portal. The landlord responded to the email, informing her that the case had been placed with a collection attorney and giving her a phone number to call. The email response included several other email addresses tied to the landlord and one for the collection attorney.
- The plaintiff sent an email to the collection attorney and the attorney responded to let the plaintiff know about the outstanding balance. The plaintiff moved to have the judgment vacated, but the state court denied the motion.
- The plaintiff then sued in federal court, alleging the email sent by the collection attorney was an improper attempt to collect on an unlawful debt. The District Court dismissed the suit, which the plaintiff appealed.
The Ruling: Because the email from the collection attorney was in response to an unprompted communication from the plaintiff, it was not an initial communication under the FDCPA, the Appeals Court ruled.
- The plaintiff also attempted to argue that the District Court made a mistake when it dismissed her claims based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the Appeals Court said it was not in a position to undo the judgment that the State Court entered against the plaintiff.
Learn more.
