A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on seven of the nine violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act it allegedly committed, denying the motion on the other two counts because the defendant failed to discuss one of the claims in its motion and because the judge said she was unable to make a credibility determination at this stage of the proceeding, regardless of how “dubious” the plaintiff’s testimony may have been.
The Background: The plaintiff took out federal student loans from Sallie Mae to attend college between 2006 and 2012. In 2014, an education refinance loan in the plaintiff’s name was submitted to Citizens Bank, which was approved. The funds were sent to Sallie Mae and the plaintiff was informed that his federal student loans had been resolved. Between 2014 and 2022, the plaintiff made regular payments to Citizens because he said he believed he was under a financial obligation to repay the loan. In 2023, the plaintiff stopped making payments.
- The bank placed the account with the defendant, which sent a collection letter to the plaintiff in January of 2023. The plaintiff responded back with a cease and desist notice, informing the law firm that it was not to contact him regarding the alleged debt. The plaintiff also attached an invoice for $11,000 for violations of the FDCPA that were caused by the defendant’s letter.
- The plaintiff sent a second letter to the defendant, informing the defendant it was now in default for the failure to pay the invoice. The plaintiff claimed there was no agreement between himself and the defendant and attached an identity theft affidavit from the Federal Trade Commission.
- Taking the second letter as a dispute, the defendant sent the plaintiff a response, which included verification of the debt between the bank and the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated nine different provisions of the FDCPA.
The Ruling: The plaintiff alleged the defendant violated Sections 1692b(1), 1692b(2), 1692b(5), 1692c(a), 1692c(c), 1692d(2), 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692j(a) of the FDCPA, but the only claims that Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not deny were the 1692e(2) and 1692c(c) claims.
- On the 1692e(2) claim, while the plaintiff’s deposition testimony “reads like he is trying to teach a Master Class in semantics and word play” he does deny ever applying for the loan that he made payments on for eight years, the judge noted. That left the judge with “no choice” but to find an issue of fact about whether the defendant’s communications included false statements about the legal status of the debt, namely that the plaintiff owed money to Citizens when he did not.
