If you’re going to accuse a collection operation of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by questioning whether the defendant actually owns the debt, acknowledging during a hearing that you aren’t alleging the defendant made any false statements is not going to help your case, which may be why a District Court judge in Minnesota granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The background: The plaintiff incurred two separate debts with a credit card issuer, which were later purchased by the defendant, a debt buyer. The defendant then hired two collection law firms to recover the balances through litigation.
- The plaintiff, however, questioned whether the defendant actually owned the debts, arguing that he had not seen documentation of the assignments. Despite this, the plaintiff did not claim that the defendant falsely represented ownership — only that they had not attached proof of the assignments to their court filings.
- When the plaintiff failed to appear for a hearing on one of the debts, a default judgment was entered. The defendant later voluntarily dismissed its claim for the second debt. Nonetheless, the plaintiff later sued, alleging violations of the FDCPA and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA).
The ruling: Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, emphasizing that the FDCPA requires a false statement to sustain a claim. Judge Provinzino noted that the plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the debt or allege that the defendant made any false representations about its ownership — only that it did not provide additional documentation.
- “In order to state a plausible claim under Section 1692e(2)(A), a plaintiff must allege that the character, amount, or legal status of the debt was falsely represented,” Judge Provinzino wrote. The court cited Hill v. Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a debt collector is not required to provide documentation of debt ownership at the time of filing a lawsuit unless they falsely claim to have it.
- Additionally, the court dismissed the MCFA claim, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law allegations after dismissing the FDCPA cause of action.
