A District Court judge in Oklahoma has dismissed the class-action component of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit, while also dismissing some of the claims, after the defendant was accused of not sending a collection lawsuit summons to the plaintiff’s correct address, which it allegedly had.
The background: The case started when the defendant, a collection law firm, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to collect an alleged debt. The defendant attempted to serve the plaintiff at three different addresses –all of them incorrect — despite allegedly having knowledge of the plaintiff’s correct address, according to the complaint. The plaintiff claims she has resided at her current address since before the service attempts were made.
- After failing to locate the plaintiff, the defendant filed an affidavit of service, leading to a default judgment against the plaintiff in state court. The plaintiff later discovered the default judgment through public records and contacted the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff’s correct address, which included post-judgment discovery requests.
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, accusing the defendant of engaging in “sewer service” by knowingly attempting to serve the plaintiff at incorrect addresses to obtain a default judgment. The plaintiff sought to bring the case as a class action on behalf of similarly situated individuals.
The ruling: Judge Patrick R. Wyrick of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued a mixed ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. He denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s individual claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support a plausible FDCPA violation based on the “sewer service” theory of liability.
- However, Judge Wyrick granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the class-action component of the lawsuit. He found that the proposed class definition was overbroad, as it could include individuals against whom the defendant had done no legal wrong.
- Judge Wyrick declined the defendant’s request to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations defense raised by the defendant. The judge found that considering evidence outside the pleadings would be premature at this stage, as no discovery had been conducted.
