Perhaps a case study on what you sometimes need to avoid filing a motion to dismiss and instead proceed to seeking summary judgment because one document can make all the difference… A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because the plaintiff could not substantiate claims that the collection agency attempted to collect and furnished information about a utility debt to a credit reporting agency that were allegedly incurred after the plaintiff sold the house.
The background: The plaintiff was billed for utility services at a house she owned. The bill was not paid and the account was placed with the defendant.
- The defendant furnished information about the debt to a credit reporting agency.
- The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by falsely reporting there was a past-due balance on the account and for furnishing information when it knew or should have known that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay.
The ruling: Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the District Court for the District of New Jersey needed only two documents — the deed for the property in question and a copy of the utilities bill — to see that the plaintiff sold the house on May 9, 2019 and that the relevant charges on the utility bill were for services provided up to May 9, 2019. And that was the information that was furnished to the credit reporting agency.
- The plaintiff didn’t do herself any favors by not supplying any evidence, such as an affidavit declaring that she was being charged for services that were provided after she sold her home, and had no proof that this was the case, Judge Farbiarz noted.
- The plaintiff’s 1692f claim faced the same fate. “The Defendant … has provided evidence that tends to suggest the Plaintiff was obligated to pay,” Judge Farbiarz wrote. “And the Plaintiff points to no ‘designated specific facts’ that suggest otherwise.”
- The plaintiff attempted to raise another theory — that the defendant failed to disclose that the plaintiff was disputing the debt — but the court declined to address it because the plaintiff did not mention it in her complaint, instead trying to raise it in her brief to the defendant’s summary judgment motion.
