If you have ever listened to an attorney on one of my webinars talk about the differences between filing a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, they will tell you that the motion for summary judgment allows them to gather evidence, such as deposing the plaintiff. That step can get a plaintiff to say, for example, that when she claimed receiving mail is inconvenient and that a collection operation shouldn’t send her any more mail, what she meant was that it was inconvenient to get the type of mail that may include financial information, which was one of the reasons why a District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
The background: This particular case, filed in the Northern District of Alabama, involves a plaintiff who had an outstanding credit card debt, which was later purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that receiving a letter from the defendant caused her significant stress and anxiety, as the content of the letter contained sensitive financial information that could potentially be seen by her children, neighbors, or others in her household.
- The plaintiff disputed the debt in writing, specifically requesting that no further communications be sent via mail using language that was drafted by an attorney who was representing her in another matter.
- The response from the plaintiff asked the defendant to communicate only through text or email, citing inconvenience and stress caused by receiving mail at her home.
- The defendant, however, sent a response via mail, which led to the plaintiff filing this lawsuit, alleging that the letter was sent in violation of her right to limit communication methods.
The ruling: The plaintiff’s main argument was that receiving the letter in the mail caused her emotional distress, but during her deposition, she admitted that the inconvenience was related more to the type of information in the letter (financial details) rather than the medium of communication itself (mail). While the plaintiff had claimed inconvenience, her testimony suggested that she did not consider receiving general mail, such as utility bills, to be problematic, noted Judge R. David Proctor of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in a 28-page ruling.
- Judge Proctor also noted that the defendant had complied with the law by sending the required documentation in response to the plaintiff’s dispute. In essence, the defendant was fulfilling its obligation under the FDCPA, which mandates that a debt collector provide verification of a debt upon request.
- The letter did not violate any specific provisions of the FDCPA, including those related to communication timing, harassment, or unfair practices, the judge determined.
