A District Court judge in New York has denied a defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of its motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case after it was sued for allegedly garnishing the wages of the wrong individual.
The Background: The defendant garnished the wages of the plaintiff after she had alerted the defendant that it had the wrong individual. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant had violated the FDCPA.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff is unable to document that the underlying debt was incurred for personal, household, or family purposes. There are plenty of signs to indicate that the underlying debt is personal in nature which allow the Magistrate Court judge to deny the motion to stay discovery, he did note that the burden for the plaintiff to defeat the motion to dismiss is much higher.
The Ruling: Judge Mark W. Pedersen of the District Court for the Western District of New York notes the contradictions that exists in this case. The FDCPA was enacted to ensure collectors only collect from the right individuals, but at the same time, the debt in question has to be personal in nature. And here, the plaintiff can only claim the debt is personal “upon information and belief.”
- Ultimately, the defendant’s claims that the discovery process would place an undue burden and unnecessary expense on the parties was not enough to convince Judge Pedersen to grant the motion for the stay while District Court Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford mulls the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- “… this case appears to involve just two parties and a straightforward set of facts,” Judge Pedersen wrote. “I therefore determine that Cohen has not shown prejudice from proceeding to discovery, nor has he demonstrated that discovery itself would be extensive.”
