A District Court judge in New Jersey has denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, shooting down each of the four arguments made by the defendant why the case should be ruled in its favor.
The Background: Back in 2017, the plaintiff purchased two books from a college bookstore. On February 22 2022, he received a letter from the defendant saying it was hired to collect a debt owed to the bookstore. The letter stated the plaintiff owed $466.77. The plaintiff — who received the letter on February 28 — was notified that he had 30 days to dispute the debt.
- The plaintiff mailed a dispute letter to the defendant on March 21. Before receiving that letter, though, and still within the 30-day dispute window, the defendant sent the plaintiff another letter. This letter indicated the plaintiff failed to respond to the initial letter.
- The defendant allegedly never responded to the plaintiff’s dispute. A month after receiving the dispute, the defendant sent the plaintiff an email stating it had closed the plaintiff’s file.
- This development left the plaintiff confused and anxious, according to the complaint. He filed suit in New Jersey state court, seeking to include anyone who received a letter from the defendant that violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA by communicating with an individual during the 30-day validation period, among other violations.
- The defendant removed the case to federal court and the plaintiff attempted to have it remanded back to state court, but the $7.38 that the plaintiff spent to mail the dispute letter was enough to convince a federal judge that the plaintiff sustained a concrete injury.
The Ruling: The defendant attempted four arguments in its motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- That the complaint is barred by the FDCPA’s statute of limitations;
- The plaintiff fails to plead the existence of a debt
- The plaintiff fails to plead that the defendant is vicariously liable for the conduct of the law firm that was acting on its behalf
- the complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that the court should dismiss
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District Court for the District of New Jersey made relatively short work of each of the defendant’s arguments, denying each. Where he spent the most time was on the vicarious liability argument, ruling on each claim made by the defendant — that the plaintiff failed to plead that the defendant was a debt collector and that it did not exercise control over the law firm that sent the letters.
- The plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges the defendant regularly collects debts for others, and the defendant in its answer admitted that it regularly collects debt for others, which did in the first part of that claim. And because the plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a debt collector and hired the law firm to collect a debt, it is “plausible” that the defendant had the right to direct the law firm, Judge Shipp ruled.
