The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has upheld the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case — a Hunstein one — ruling that there was nothing associated with the defendant’s use of a third-party vendor to print and mail a collection letter that was “abusive, deceptive or unfair” under the statute.
The Background: The plaintiff incurred a debt that was placed with the defendant for collection. The defendant engaged a third-party vendor to create and mail a letter to the plaintiff. The letter included the plaintiff’s name and address, the creditor’s name, and the amount of the debt.
- The plaintiff filed suit in New Jersey state court, accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA by communicating information about the debt with an unapproved third party. The defendant removed the case to federal court, but it was remanded back to state court. A state court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that while the vendor that printed and mailed the letter is not one of the exceptions for communicating with third parties under the FDCPA, the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury.
- The plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a different state court judge dismissed the case again. “Simply put, this is not the type of conduct that Congress was interested in preventing,” the judge wrote. The judge then denied a motion for reconsideration that was filed by the plaintiff.
The Ruling: The plaintiff appealed the ruling, arguing the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint because it ignored several conventions of statutory interpretation and should not have considered anything beyond the text of the statute.
- However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the allegations that the defendant’s use of a vendor “created a substantial risk of harm” and “increased the likelihood of additional improper third party disclosures” were “abstract and insufficient to sustain a cause of action.”
- “Even when providing every favorable inference to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, nothing in it alleged defendant’s conduct was abusive, deceptive or unfair, which is the harm Congress intended to prevent,” the Appeals Court wrote.
