In a case that was defended by Mitch Williamson of Barron & Newburger, a District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit after the defendant mailed validation inquiry back to the plaintiff instead of emailing it as the plaintiff requested.
The background: In response to a communication from the defendant, the plaintiff sent a letter via regular mail disputing the debt and requesting that all future communications be sent to his email address. Despite the request, the defendant mailed a debt validation letter to the plaintiff, identifying the original creditor and summarizing the debt.
- The plaintiff subsequently filed suit, alleging that by mailing the response instead of emailing it, the defendant violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including those prohibiting communications at inconvenient times or places, harassment, use of deceptive practices, and unconscionable collection methods.
The ruling: Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint, finding that mailing a letter was not a violation of any FDCPA provision. The plaintiff’s request to use email did not amount to a claim that postal mail was an inconvenient time or place, which are the statutory terms used in the FDCPA.
- Quoting precedent, Judge Wigenton wrote “It stated that future communications should be sent through email, which communicates only ‘an inconvenient manner of communication, not an inconvenient time or place for communication,’” citing Kirk v. Credit Mgmt. L.P.
- The court also noted that Section 1692g(b) the FDCPA explicitly requires debt collectors to “mail” a verification of any disputed debt.
- Finally, the plaintiff failed to explain how receiving a letter by mail was harassing, abusive, or misleading.
