In another case involving the attorneys who were previously sanctioned for writing intentionally vague dispute letters and then filing suit when the accounts were not properly marked as disputed, a Magistrate Court judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case and partially granted a motion for sanctions.
The background: The case was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court and later removed to federal court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to properly respond to a handwritten dispute letter and by continuing to furnish credit information without marking the account as disputed.
- The dispute letter attached to the complaint followed the same unusual format that had already drawn scrutiny in earlier cases. It was handwritten, rambling in tone, and included irrelevant references unrelated to the alleged debt, while embedding a vague statement disputing the obligation.
- After the complaint was filed, the court became aware that the same attorneys had been sanctioned in separate but nearly identical matters involving the same defendant and nearly identical dispute letters.
- Those earlier cases resulted in findings that the letters were not authored by the consumers at all, but instead were created by law firm staff using a template designed to confuse debt collectors and trigger FDCPA claims. Once those findings came to light, the court stayed this case to determine whether similar misconduct had occurred.
The ruling: Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that the conduct at issue was indistinguishable from the behavior previously sanctioned. Judge Kelly noted that counsel conceded the same litigation strategy was used and acknowledged that the case was no longer viable.
- The judge also partially granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions, finding that the complaint was “corrupt at its inception.”
- Judge Kelly rejected arguments that the consumer had meaningfully consented to the conduct, noting that the misconduct was attributable to counsel, not the plaintiff.
- However, she declined to impose additional monetary sanctions, citing the substantial sanctions already imposed in the related cases and the existence of pending disciplinary proceedings. The court concluded that dismissal with prejudice, combined with the existing sanctions and disciplinary actions, was sufficient to deter future misconduct.
