One trend that has been mentioned by a growing number of attorneys are plaintiffs who are representing themselves in cases against collection operations. This ruling highlights what defending those types of cases is like. A Magistrate Court judge in New York has denied a number of motions filed by a plaintiff, including one seeking sanctions against the defendants in a Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case.
The background: The plaintiff, representing himself, filed suit against a credit reporting agency and debt buyer, alleging violations of both the FCRA and FDCPA. His claims were that the defendants inaccurately furnished information and included it on his credit report and improper collection practices.
- He alleged that a debt buyer improperly accessed his consumer report, re-aged an account, and reported false information to the credit reporting agency. He also claimed that the CRA failed to properly investigate his disputes, continued to allow access to his credit report without authorization, and mishandled his complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- While the underlying claims were still moving through the court, the plaintiff filed a series of motions, including requests to strike filings, compel additional action from the defendants, and impose sanctions.
The ruling: Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York methodically rejected each of the plaintiff’s requests. In doing so, she noted that many of the motions lacked any legal or factual basis.
- For example, in addressing the sanctions request, which was rejected because the allegations went to the merits of the case rather than sanctionable conduct, the ruling stated, “The plaintiff has not demonstrated conduct by the defendants that would come close to warranting such an extraordinary remedy.”
- The court also rejected arguments that the credit reporting agency breached confidentiality agreements or fabricated documents, finding those disputes outside the scope of sanctions.
- A motion to compel additional documents from the debt buyer was denied after Judge Pollak found that the company had already produced chain of title documentation, billing statements, a bill of sale, and account notes.
- The plaintiff’s attempt to have the court recognize the CFPB as an interested party was also denied, with the judge noting there was no indication the agency wanted to participate.
- Similarly, a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of decisions in other cases, including an $83 million Missouri verdict against the defendant, was denied.
- In her report and recommendation, Judge Pollak also reminded the plaintiff that pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with legal standards. “While filings from parties without counsel are read liberally, they are not exempt from the rules that govern litigation,” the order read. By holding the plaintiff to the same procedural requirements as represented parties, the court reinforced that litigation requires a careful balance of fairness and efficiency.
