A District Court judge in New York has denied a motion from a plaintiff who has filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint against a collection law firm that sought an injunction stopping a collection lawsuit that was filed against her in state court.
The background: The firm filed a lawsuit in New York state court to recover an unpaid credit card debt of nearly $5,000.
- The plaintiff obtained a recorded statement from the original creditor, allegedly denying involvement in any lawsuit against her.
- Based on this, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court alleging violations of the FDCPA and New York General Business Law, Section 349, and asked the court for a preliminary injunction.
- Specifically, she sought to stay the state court action, prohibit the law firm from reporting or attempting to collect the debt, and force the withdrawal of the state court lawsuit.
The ruling: Judge Natasha C. Merle of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied the motion, ruling that the requested injunction was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from interfering in state court proceedings except in narrow circumstances.
- Judge Merle noted that the plaintiff did not identify any applicable exception. The FDCPA provides for monetary damages, but as the court explained, “Plaintiff has not articulated how her ability to collect money damages from defendant’s alleged violation of the FDCPA will be impaired or defeated in the absence of a stay of the state court debt collection proceeding.”
- The judge also rejected arguments under the Anti-Injunction Act’s other two exceptions.
- In summing up her denial, Judge Merle emphasized that “[t]he Anti-Injunction Act functions as an absolute prohibition against any injunction of any state-court proceedings.”
