A District Court judge in Nevada has denied competing summary judgment motions from both parties in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that it isn’t totally clear whether the debt in question — the purchase of Botox — is covered under the FDCPA.
The Background: The plaintiff purchased Botox Aesthetic from a business. The plaintiff later received a letter from the defendant indicating that she owed the business more money. The plaintiff disputed the amount that she owed and subsequently sued the defendant for violating the FDCPA.
Standing: The defendant attempted to claim the plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but the plaintiff’s declaration that she spent time researching credit reporting rules and attorneys who could help her, along with suffering loss of sleep, loss of appetite, migraines, and decreased interest in leaving the house was enough to convince the judge that the plaintiff had standing to pursue her suit.
The Dispute: The defendant claims that the purchase in question was not for household or personal use and was a form of corporate espionage, which would make the debt not subject to the FDCPA. The plaintiff, meanwhile, relied on a declaration from herself, an invoice, and deposition testimony from the defendant’s principal and debt collector.
- But, as Judge Miranda M. Du of the District Court for the District of Nevada points out, that while the plaintiff swears it was for personal use, the defendant doesn’t believe her, the invoice doesn’t clearly indicate anything, and the debt collector testified he didn’t know what the purchase was for. So all Judge Du has to rely on is the conflicting testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Given that there is a genuine factual dispute, Judge Du denied both motions for summary judgment and referred the case to a Magistrate judge to hold a settlement conference.
