A District Court judge in California has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit, ruling the arguments raised by the defendant were not applicable at this stage of the proceedings.
The Background: The defendant attempted to evict the plaintiff because the plaintiff allegedly failed to pay his rent. The plaintiff claims the rent had already been paid or that the attempted collection of the rent was time-barred, but the defendant continually harassed the plaintiff about the debt. The plaintiff also claims the defendant sought to seize possession of the residence on the basis that the rent had not been paid.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated six provisions of the FDCPA.
- The defendant filed the motion to dismiss, arguing that, in fact, the plaintiff was behind on his rent. The defendant claimed the plaintiff had lived at the residence for years without paying any rent that he agreed to pay when he signed the lease.
- The defendant also argued that the suit should be dismissed because the complaint doesn’t allege “anything other than a good faith effort to recover a legitimate debt.”
The Ruling: Neither of the defendant’s arguments are timely at this stage of the proceedings, ruled Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the District Court for the Southern District of California.
- The claim that the plaintiff had not paid his rent is a factual dispute and at this stage of the proceedings, everything in the plaintiff’s complaint is still assumed to be true.
- Similarly, it was also not the right time to raise the argument that the defendant did nothing other than to try and collect on a debt. The burden to make this argument is on the defendant and it did not show that a good faith defense is obvious on the face of the complaint.
