In a case that was defended by Jessica Klander and Nick Prola at Bassford Remele, a state court judge in North Dakota has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that its use of the Model Validation Notice entitled it to the safe harbors afforded by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the plaintiff’s claims that it did not provide the required 30-day notice to dispute the debt.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after receiving a Model Validation Notice in November 2024 for an unpaid Internet bill. The notice gave a deadline of December 30, 2024, for the plaintiff to dispute the debt.
- The plaintiff sent a certified letter disputing the debt on January 11, 2025, which was outside the 30-day window. In response, the defendant voluntarily stopped collection efforts and sent five itemized billing statements.
- The plaintiff claimed this deadline failed to satisfy the 30-day notice requirement under Section1692g(a) of the FDCPA and further alleged violations of Sections 1692g(b) and 1692e because the defendant allegedly failed to provide a contract or agreement verifying the debt and engaging in false or misleading representations. He also sought damages under North Dakota’s consumer protection laws.
The ruling: The court ruled the defendant’s use of the CFPB’s Model Validation Notice afforded it safe harbor protections under Section 1006.34(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation F. The judge, Rhonda R. Ehlis, wrote, “beyond a doubt, [the plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim, which would entitle him to relief,” and that the MVN “complied with federal law” when it listed a calendar date establishing the end of the validation period instead of explicitly stating “30 days.”
- Regarding the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s verification required a copy of the original contract, the court sided with the defendant, citing federal case law that “verification of a debt involves nothing more than…confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.”
- On the 1692e claim, the court found no evidence of misleading urgency or misrepresentation and noted that any deadline referenced in the notice was required by law.
- The judge also dismissed the state law claims.
