EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
This isn’t something that you see everyday. A consumer, the defendant in a collection lawsuit filed in Kansas state court is seeking to have the case removed to federal court in order to address allegations that the plaintiff, a debt buyer, has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to validate the debt and by filing the lawsuit in the wrong venue. Normally, it’s the other way around — a consumer files a lawsuit in state court and the collection operation tries to have the case heard in federal court.
The background: Last February, the plaintiff sent the defendant correspondence attempting to collect on a debt of $20,666.75. The correspondence was allegedly mailed to a commercial business owed by the defendant’s wife, in Kansas City, Miss.
- The defendant subsequently sought validation of the debt, according to the complaint.
- The plaintiff then initiated a collection lawsuit in Coffey County, Kansas, which is not the venue where the defendant lives.
- The defendant attempted to argue that the plaintiff had violated the FDCPA, but the judge claimed that the defense was irrelevant because the action was brought under Kansas law, not federal law.
- The defendant offered to settle the debt for $2,000, but the plaintiff rejected the offer, leading the defendant to remove the case to federal court.
The claims: The defendant is seeking to have a federal court judge assigned to the case, to determine whether the plaintiff violated section 1692g(b) of the FDCPA by not validating the debt and Section 1692k(d) of the FDCPA over the jurisdiction in which the original collection suit was filed.
