A District Court judge in Florida has adopted the recommendations of a Magistrate Court judge and declined a motion from a defendant for attorney’s fees in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ultimately ruling that the plaintiff’s claims were deficient, and not frivolous.
The Background: The plaintiff is an attorney who represented an individual in a collection lawsuit in regard to an unpaid debt. The plaintiff was named as a defendant, as well as his law firm. Ultimately, that suit was dismissed.
- The attorney then filed a lawsuit against the attorney who represented the healthcare provider in the collection lawsuit and the firm he manages, alleging violations of the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act by stating the attorney was responsible for the underlying debt, that the underlying collection lawsuit was an attempt to coerce the attorney into providing compensation, and that the defendant accused the plaintiff of unethical and illegal conduct through a bar complaint as a means of inducing payment on the debt.
- The judge granted summary judgment for the defendant, ruling the plaintiff failed to establish elements of his FDCPA claims.
- The defendant then filed the motion for attorney’s fees.
The Ruling: The defendants objected to the Magistrate judge’s ruling that the case was not brought in bad faith, but this case was not one where an attorney knowingly or recklessly pursued a frivolous claim, ruled Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- “Ultimately, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the FDCPA counts here were simply deficient, not frivolous,” Judge Honeywell wrote. “This Court’s order on summary judgment did not find, explicitly or impliedly, that the FDCPA counts were ‘so patently devoid of merit as to be ‘frivolous.’”
