A District Court judge in Minnesota has denied a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the defendant — a law firm that specializes in representing landlords — meets the statute’s definition of a “debt collector.”
The background: The case was filed after the defendant pursued eviction actions on behalf of clients against several tenants. In each instance, the defendant was hired to evict tenants over rental arrears, but the plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s actions extended beyond simply evicting them. For instance, in one case, a tenant alleges that the defendant tried to collect an incorrect debt after a landlord improperly assessed duplicate charges following an overpayment. Similarly, other plaintiffs allege that the defendant’s eviction actions sought to recover amounts that they did not legally owe, including excessive fees and overstated rental arrears.
- The plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s conduct violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including the prohibition against misleading representations and unlawful collection practices.
- In response, the defendant filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in three separate cases, asserting that its actions were exempt from the FDCPA’s reach because they were primarily related to enforcing a security interest, similar to actions in nonjudicial foreclosure cases.
The ruling: Judge Katherine Menendez of the District Court for the District of Minnesota disagreed with the defendant’s position, like that in the Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP case, that its eviction efforts were merely to enforce a security interest and should fall outside the scope of the FDCPA.
- Judge Menendez explained in her ruling that while Obduskey limited debt collector status to specific cases involving security interest enforcement, it did not create an exemption for eviction proceedings under Minnesota law. She emphasized that eviction actions, particularly when related to rent collection or disputes, often qualify as debt collection, a position previously supported in similar cases within the district.
- “Although the Eighth Circuit has not addressed this issue, courts in this District have observed that under Minnesota law, an eviction action is ‘equivalent to a demand for rent,’ and therefore qualifies as debt collection activity for purposes of the main coverage of FDCPA,” Judge Menendez wrote in her ruling.
