A District Court judge in the District of Columbia has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case filed by a pro se plaintiff, ruling the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence in his complaint to state a claim. It appears as thought the plaintiff’s argument is that a cease-and-desist notification he sent to the defendant meant the defendant had to stop reporting the debt to a credit reporting agency.
The Background: The plaintiff received a letter from the defendant in February 2023 seeking to collect on an unpaid utility debt. The defendant also began reporting the debt to a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff responded to the letter with a cease-and-desist notice requesting that the defendant terminate all further contact with him. The plaintiff attached a screenshot of his account balance, indicated he had made payments in the two months preceding the letter being sent.
- A year later, the plaintiff sent two more letters to the defendant, alerting them that they were in violation of the FDCPA because they were inaccurately reporting a collection item to the credit reporting agency despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter.
- The plaintiff filed suit in D.C. state court, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA but not mentioning any specific provisions. The defendant removed the case to federal court and filed the motion to dismiss
The Ruling: Ultimately, the plaintiff’s complaint was “too vague and conclusory” to articulate a viable legal claim, noted Judge Loren L. Alikhan of the District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Alikahn said she was unable to figure out what was going on and the sequence of events. The plaintiff, for example, claimed that the defendant harassed him and was negligent, but provided no substantiation or evidence to back up the claim.
- The plaintiff also circled the defendant’s logo on the collection letter and wrote 1692d(2) next to it, but did not provide additional detail what it was about the logo that was obscene or profane.
- The judge also took issue with the claim that the defendant violated the FDCPA by reporting the debt after receiving the cease-and-desist notice.
- After sending the cease-and-desist notice, the plaintiff even sought to seek damages for the defendant’s “continued silence.”
