A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has granted a credit union’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it threatened to repossess a vehicle after the plaintiff stopped making payments.
The background: The plaintiff purchased a Nissan Pathfinder under a retail installment sales contract that was financed through the defendant, a credit union.
- The plaintiff made on-time payments for roughly a year before raising questions about the loan agreement and the process used to finance the vehicle, according to the complaint.
- After the account entered default, the defendant sent several notices between July and December 2023 advising the plaintiff that the vehicle was subject to repossession as permitted under the contract.
- The plaintiff later filed suit, alleging violations of the FDCPA among a number of other federal statutes, asserting that the repossession threats constituted unlawful collection activity.
The ruling: Judge Karen S. Marston of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the FDCPA claim with prejudice, finding two independent reasons why it should not proceed.
- First, the defendant was not a debt collector under the statute. Judge Marston noted that the defendant was attempting to collect a debt owed to itself, which places it squarely within the FDCPA’s creditor exemption.
- Judge Marston further found the claim time barred. All communications containing alleged threats of repossession were sent no later than December 2023, but the plaintiff did not file suit until June 2025, well outside the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations.
- The judge dismissed the remaining claims as well, finding that the plaintiff lacked a private right of action under the criminal statute she invoked, and that her constitutional claims were filed more than a year after the statute of limitations expired.
- The court also rejected multiple motions challenging the authority of defense counsel, finding them “baseless.”
