EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A collection law firm is facing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit because the plaintiff made an unusual request in a letter that the firm opted not to follow.
The Background: The plaintiff received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant last August. The notice informed the plaintiff of a debt in the amount of $3,560.38. The plaintiff sent a fax back to the defendant a month later, disputing the validity of the debt. The plaintiff’s communication also revoked consent to be contacted via mobile telephone — whether by calling or texting — landline, social media, or fax. The letter also requested that none of the plaintiff’s information be shared with third parties.
- Then the letter closed with this request — Please be advised that if this debt is subject to a contractual arbitration provision, then I elect that any claims against me be submitted to arbitration rather than court.
- Two weeks later, the defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff. In the complaint, the attorney representing the defendant certified that the matter was not subject of any other court action or arbitration proceeding, now pending or contemplated, and that no other parties should be joined in the action.
- The plaintiff did not respond to the complaint, claiming to have been confused because she had indicated her preference for the matter to be handled via arbitration.
The Claims: The suit accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA. It seeks to include anyone who elected for their claim to be submitted via arbitration rather than court. It also seeks to include a subclass of consumers who were sued by the defendant in New Jersey state court after the consumer had elected for any claim to be submitted to arbitration.
