A District Court judge in Kansas has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it sent a communication to the plaintiff to collect on an unpaid auto loan debt after the plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy protection, ruling the communication did not violate the FDCPA because the notification about the bankruptcy filing that was sent to the defendant wasn’t sent by the plaintiff.
The background: The plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in June 2024 and listed an auto loan among his debts. The bankruptcy court sent notice of the filing to the original creditor shortly thereafter.
- Nearly a year later, the defendant, acting as a debt collector on that account, sent the plaintiff a collection letter seeking payment.
- The plaintiff then filed suit alleging the letter violated the FDCPA, including a claim under Section 1692c(c), which requires collectors to stop communicating with a consumer after receiving written notice from the consumer refusing to pay or requesting that communications cease.
- According to the plaintiff, the bankruptcy notice issued by the court should have counted as that written notice.
The ruling: Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District Court for the District of Kansas disagreed and dismissed the FDCPA cease-communication claim. She focused on the plain language of the statute, which requires that notice come from the consumer or a narrowly defined group of representatives. A bankruptcy court does not fall within that definition.
- “The plain language of § 1692c(c) requires that a ‘consumer’ notify the debt collector in writing,” Judge Robinson wrote and the plaintiff did not allege that he personally sent such a notice.
- The judge also rejected the argument that filing for bankruptcy effectively set the cease-communication process in motion. Courts addressing similar arguments have consistently found that bankruptcy notices alone are insufficient for FDCPA purposes.
Murray v. Westlake Portfolio Management, 25-cv-2443
