Where the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit became known as the standing court, District Courts in Oklahoma are earning a reputation for being the court where inconvenient time and place caselaw is being written. This time, a District Court judge in Oklahoma has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it sent a letter in response to a letter from the plaintiff stating that email was the only convenient channel of communication going forward.
The background: In response to a collection communication, the plaintiff sent a certified letter to the defendant on June 30, 2023. In this letter, the plaintiff disputed an alleged debt and informed the defendant that email was the only convenient way to contact her going forward.
- The defendant received this letter on July 3, 2023. On July 14, 2023, the defendant mailed a validation letter to the plaintiff’s home address, seeking to collect the disputed debt. The plaintiff does not live alone and claimed that the second letter caused someone else to learn about the debt.
- The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging violations Sections 1692c(a)(1) and 1692d of the FDCPA.
- The plaintiff claimed that by sending a letter to her home after she had specified email as the only convenient communication method, the defendant had violated these provisions of the FDCPA.
The ruling: Regarding the 1692c(a)(1) claim, Judge Scott L. Palk of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma determined that the plaintiff’s dispute was with the medium of communication (mail vs. email), not the place of communication. The judge cited several other recent rulings that have made similar distinctions, noting that the FDCPA does not prohibit specific communication methods, only communicating during inconvenient times or via inconvenient places.
- The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the second letter violated Section 1006.14(h) of Regulation F, stating that this regulation applies to claims under Section 1692d of the FDCPA related to harassment or abuse, not Section 1692c of the statute.
- Even if Regulation F were applicable, Judge Palk noted that the defendant’s conduct would fall under an exception, as it was legally required to mail verification of the debt to the plaintiff.
- For the 1692d claim, Judge Palk found that the plaintiff’s allegations, based on a single letter, were insufficient to state a plausible claim for harassment, oppression, or abuse.
