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.
Two lawsuits for the price of one today. A pair of lawsuits have been filed against different collection operations by different plaintiffs both in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, who are essentially making the same claim — that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Regulation F by not honoring requests from the plaintiffs to cease communications. It’s one that companies are seeing more and more of these days. In one of the cases, the defendant wasn’t given much time to honor the request.
The Background: In both cases, the plaintiffs received emails from the defendant that were attempts to collect on unpaid debts. Plaintiff one received his email on July 7. Plaintiff two received her email on February 21. Plaintiff one responded to the email on July 12. Plaintiff two responded to the email on February 21.
- Plaintiff one responded to the email that he was “unwilling to pay.”
- Plaintiff two responded by conveying “her determination to ensure financial success in 2024” which was going to happen by managing her expenses efficiently. She added that she was not willing to make any payments at this time and, for emphasis, said, “I’m unwilling to pay.”
- Twelve days after sending in his refusal to pay notification, plaintiff one received another email that included the disclosure, “this is an attempt to collect a debt.”
- Three days after sending in her refusal to pay notification, plaintiff two received another email from the defendant.
- Plaintiff one’s claim for standing was that the defendant’s communication caused him anger, anxiety, intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, decreased ability to focus on task while at work, and frustration, amongst other negative emotions.
- Plaintiff two was emotionally distressed after receiving the second email from the defendant. The defendant’s “disregard” of the plaintiff’s request caused severe humiliation and mental anguish, as well.
The Claim: Both plaintiffs accuse the defendants of violating Section 1692c(c) of the FDCPA. Plaintiff two added a claim that the defendant also violated Section 1692c(1) of the FDCPA.
