A Magistrate Court judge in California has recommended granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by continuing to attempt to collect on a debt after the plaintiff had requested that the defendant stop its collection attempts on the grounds that the request was filed in the form of a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and not directly with the defendant.
The background: The plaintiff, proceeding without an attorney, alleged that the defendant violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA in connection with a $677 credit card debt. According to the complaint, the plaintiff disputed the debt and submitted a cease-and-desist request through the CFPB in February 2025, asking that all collection activity stop and requesting documentation showing the defendant owned the account.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant failed to provide that documentation and later sent a collection letter demanding payment, which she alleged violated the FDCPA’s dispute, cease communication, and harassment provisions.
- The plaintiff filed her complaint in California state court, and a default judgment was issued against the defendant, but was later vacated after the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction due to the removal.
The ruling: In recommending dismissal, Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the District Court for the Eastern District of California found that the complaint failed to allege the basic elements required to state an FDCPA claim. Notably, Judge Grosjean pointed out that the complaint did not specifically allege that the plaintiff was a consumer under the statute or that the defendant was acting as a debt collector.
- The judge also focused on the cease-and-desist issue, concluding that a complaint submitted to the CFPB does not satisfy the FDCPA’s requirement that notice be sent directly to the debt collector. As the court explained, Section 1692c(c) requires that “the consumer give written notification to the identified debt collector,” which did not occur based on the allegations in the complaint.
- On the dispute claim, the court emphasized that the FDCPA does not require a debt collector to provide an assignment contract and cited precedent stating that verification involves confirming the amount owed, not proving ownership.
- Judge Grosjean also rejected the plaintiff’s harassment claim, noting that a vague reference to “further action” in a collection letter does not amount to abusive or harassing conduct.
- While recommending dismissal, the judge also recommended that the plaintiff be given leave to amend, observing that she claimed she could allege additional facts to support her claims if allowed to do so.
