A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as well as a motion seeking sanctions against the defendant, over allegations that the defendant knowingly submitted a false affidavit of service in a collection lawsuit filed against the plaintiff.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and several attorneys following a state court collection action in which he alleged the defendant filed a “false affidavit of service” containing fabricated details, including that he was served at an address where he did not live by an individual “who does not exist.”
- The plaintiff asserted that the affidavit led the state court to issue an improper judgment and argued that the conduct violated the FDCPA and the FCRA, and also constituted fraud on the court and abuse of process.
- The plaintiff later informed the District Court that the state case had been reopened, the judgment vacated, and that he ultimately prevailed at a new trial.
The ruling: Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the District Court for the District of Maryland held that none of the federal claims were adequately pleaded.
- On the FDCPA claim, the plaintiff did not identify which subsection of section 1692e was allegedly violated or what specific representations were false. The judge noted that these “deficiencies are fatal,” citing recent Fourth Circuit precedent requiring FDCPA plaintiffs to identify both the subsection and the challenged representation.
- On the FCRA claim, Judge Boardman found that the plaintiff failed to allege the basic elements of a furnisher liability case under section 1681s-2(b), including whether he notified a credit bureau of a dispute or whether the bureau notified the defendant. This claim was dismissed without prejudice.
- The fraud on the court claim was also dismissed with prejudice because the alleged false affidavit amounted to a routine evidentiary dispute, not an attempt to corrupt the judicial process. As the court wrote, fraud on the court “is not your ‘garden-variety fraud’” and is limited to extreme situations such as bribery or improper influence on a judge.
