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.
I’m sure there is a perfectly legitimate legal reason for this, but does it seem weird to you that a plaintiff would file a class-action lawsuit against a collection operation for allegedly violating Regulation F and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for sending a Model Validation Notice that did not provide the full 30-day window for the plaintiff to dispute all or part of a debt, but not include the Notice as part of the complaint? Maybe it just smells fishy to me.
The Background: The plaintiff, sometime before April 30, received a Model Validation Notice from the defendant. The complaint doesn’t say if the notice was dated April 30 or if that was just the date the notice landed in the plaintiff’s mailbox.
- The notice informed the plaintiff that federal law provides a 30-day window for all or part of the debt to be disputed. The disclosure also said, “The law does not require our firm to wait until the end of the thirty-day period before suing your unit to collect this debt.”
- The notice informed the plaintiff that any dispute had to be submitted by May 10.
- A least sophisticated consumer would be confused and misled because his or her dispute rights under the FDCPA are being overshadowed, according to the complaint.
The Claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g by not providing the full 30-day period for the plaintiff to dispute the debt.
- The complaint seeks to include anyone else who received an initial communication from the defendant that was substantially similar or identical to the April 30 communication that was sent to the plaintiff.
- The complaint was filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
