A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action lawsuit, ruling the plaintiff plausibly alleged violations of the statute after the defendant — a collection law firm — allegedly edited an account statement to include additional fees.
The Background: The plaintiff purchased a home that required payments to a homeowner’s association. The defendant filed a lawsuit in 2019 attempting to collect on unpaid assessments and a default judgment was entered against the plaintiff in the amount of $2,059. The defendant then began charging additional fees not included in the judgment. The defendant filed another lawsuit in 2022 and again obtained a default judgment, this time for $6,432.95.
- The plaintiff then requested a copy of her account history. The defendant sent a letter in January 2023 that included an account statement, listing the total debt at $8,564.85. The letter indicated that the amounts were based on “the information that we have been provided [from the association].” The plaintiff claims the actual balance was $7,681.85 and that the defendant sought to recover amounts that were not authorized by the 2022 judgment. The plaintiff accused the defendant of editing the account statement and when questioned, the defendant admitted that some of the fees listed were not incurred by the HOA.
The Ruling: The defendant first attempted to argue that the case should be dismissed because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which holds that federal courts are not allowed to hear appeals of matters that were originally heard in state court. But in this case, the plaintiff was not arguing about anything to do with the judgments — the issue is that the defendant misrepresented the amount due by editing the post-judgment account statement. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn’t apply, ruled Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The defendant also attempted to argue that the plaintiff did not state a claim, but Judge Sanchez ruled that even a least sophisticated debtor would read the language in the letter — which said the information was based on what the HOA provided — and would not interpret the statement as including additional fees added by the defendant.
