A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit that was filed essentially because the plaintiff objected to being contacted at all about the underlying debt.
The background: The lawsuit stemmed from the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant violated the FDCPA by contacting him via mail, email, and phone about what he called an “unverified debt” without his consent. He alleged the company sent “deceptive forms” stating he owed the debt and argued that he never permitted any communication.
- The plaintiff’s complaint cited violations of Sections 1692b(2), 1692b(3), and 1692c(a)(1) of the FDCPA.
- However, the allegations didn’t claim the defendant contacted anyone other than the plaintiff, nor did they specify that communications occurred at an unusual or inconvenient time or place, as required to trigger liability under 1692c(a)(1).
- Instead, the plaintiff asserted, “it is never convenient for me to be contacted” by the defendant.
- The case was originally filed in New Jersey state court before being removed to federal court.
The ruling: Judge Jamel K. Semper of the District Court for the District of New Jersey made short work of the plaintiff’s arguments, finding that the complaint “patently fails to sufficiently state a cause of action.”
- Judge Semper noted that Section 1692b of the FDCPA applies only to communications with third parties for location information, which was not alleged here.
- As for the 1692c(a)(1) claim, the court explained that merely objecting to any contact does not equate to proving contact at a prohibited time or place, writing “This is a far cry from the case law establishing what constitutes an unusual or inconvenient time or place.”
- The judge did give the plaintiff 30 days to amend the complaint and address the deficiencies.
