Having read more than a few rulings over the years, I feel somewhat qualified to opine that when a complaint lodges 17 different counts, chances are it’s not going to go well for the plaintiff. A District Court judge in Massachusetts has granted motions to dismiss filed by defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit brought by a “vexatious” plaintiff.
The background: The plaintiff claimed that several entities engaged in harassing collection efforts tied to medical bills that were already paid by Medicare. The plaintiff alleged that he received incorrect billing statements, was told he had settled a case for an injury that never occurred, and that defendants referenced unrelated settlements in connection with his accounts.
- In response, he filed suit in state court asserting 17 different claims, invoking the FDCPA, FCRA, state consumer credit reporting laws, fraud, invasion of privacy, emotional distress, defamation, negligent hiring, and tortious interference.
- The case was later removed to federal court, where multiple defendants sought dismissal.
The ruling: Judge Julia E. Kobick dismissed the case in its entirety, siding with the defendants on multiple grounds.
- The FDCPA claims failed because federal agencies like CMS are shielded by sovereign immunity and because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that other defendants met the legal definition of “debt collectors.”
- The FCRA claims were tossed because the plaintiff’s disputes were made directly to the companies, not through a credit reporting agency, as the law requires.
- The court also found that state-law claims lacked the necessary factual support. Two of the defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, with the judge noting that they had no meaningful contacts with Massachusetts.
- In a particularly pointed section, Judge Kobick highlighted the plaintiff’s “vexatious pattern of litigation,” referencing numerous prior lawsuits dismissed for failure to prosecute, frivolous claims, or repeated noncompliance with court orders. Unlike typical dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, which are without prejudice, the court ordered dismissal with prejudice, permanently barring the plaintiff from refiling these claims.
