A District Court judge in Arizona has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the plaintiff — who is representing himself — failed to state a claim after filing suit because the defendant allegedly marked his account as disputed when he did not attempt to dispute the debt.
The Background: During a conversation with a representative of the defendant, the plaintiff said “that it is not a good time to pay the debt” in question. The representative marked the account as disputed even though the plaintiff said he was not disputing the debt during the conversation.
- Because of the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff became “stressed emotionally and mentally” and that he “lost his appetite” and “focus at work” while also being forced to spend more than $2,000 on credit repair services.
- The plaintiff filed suit in Arizona state court, accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692e of the FDCPA and state law in Arizona related to Fair Credit Reporting. The defendant removed the case to federal court and filed the motion to dismiss.
The Ruling: Unfortunately for the plaintiff, reporting a debt as disputed “is not conduct” in connection with the collection of a debt under Section 1692e(8) of the FDCPA, ruled Judge Jennifer G. Zipps of the District Court for the District of Arizona. Thus, the plaintiff failed to allege the defendant was attempting to collect a debt, which is required to make an FDCPA claim, Judge Zipps noted.
- The plaintiff’s state law claims fared no better. The section under which the plaintiff filed his claim has to do with the calculation of days from which a credit or loan account is considered delinquent and doesn’t mention anything related to actions “against debt collectors for misrepresenting consumers’ accounts on their credit reports,” Judge Zipps wrote. Furthermore, Judge Zipps determined, the plaintiff’s state law claim is preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
