A District Court judge in Nevada has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit, disagreeing with the plaintiff’s argument that traffic fines should be subject to the statute because driving a car is a consumer use.
The background: The plaintiffs received letters and recorded phone calls from the defendant seeking to collect unpaid fines related to misdemeanor traffic citations. The plaintiffs claimed that the letters appeared to be from the Las Vegas Justice Court, warning them that a warrant had been issued against them, which could lead to arrest if they were stopped by law enforcement. The phone number listed was controlled by the defendant, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had sent more than 12,000 such letters despite being instructed by the Las Vegas Justice Court to cease. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that recorded robocalls were made, warning of possible arrest due to unpaid fines. As a result, the plaintiffs filed suit under the FDCPA, arguing that traffic fines should be considered consumer debts because driving is a consumer use.
The ruling: Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument and ruled that the traffic fines in question did not constitute a “debt” under the FDCPA. “Although purchasing a vehicle may be a consumer transaction, incurring a citation while driving one is not,” Judge Gordon wrote.
- Judge Gordon explained that the FDCPA only applies to obligations arising from consensual transactions related to consumer goods or services, and that traffic fines do not meet this criterion. He cited established case law, noting that several other courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have held that municipal fines, including traffic citations, do not qualify as consumer debts under the FDCPA. Since the fines did not arise from a consumer transaction, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims must be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought back before the court.
- Judge Gordon did, however, allow the plaintiffs the option to amend their negligence claim against the defendant, against the defendant’s objections.
