A District Court judge in Washington has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in a case that serves as a reminder about some of the timing and foundational elements that are required when alleging violations of the FDCPA.
The background: The case arose from a dispute involving two mortgages on the plaintiff’s home. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant lacked the legal authority to collect payments and report credit information because another entity remained listed as the beneficiary of record on the deeds of trust. According to the complaint, no assignment of the deeds had been publicly recorded, and any transfer of interest allegedly occurred only within an electronic mortgage registry.
- Based on those allegations, the plaintiff asserted claims under the FDCPA, the FCRA, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
- The plaintiff argued that the defendant used false or misleading representations to collect payments, furnished inaccurate credit information after receiving disputes, and failed to properly respond to written requests seeking documentation of its authority.
The ruling: Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed all claims, finding that the complaint relied heavily on conclusions rather than facts.
- With respect to the FCRA claim, the judge emphasized that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific information furnished to credit bureaus that was inaccurate or materially misleading.
- The FDCPA claim failed for multiple reasons. First, Judge Cartwright found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant was a debt collector subject to the statute, noting that the defendant began servicing the loans before any default occurred.
- The judge also rejected the idea that the FDCPA required the defendant to produce a servicing agreement or recorded assignment simply because the plaintiff demanded it.
- While the claims were dismissed, the judge granted the plaintiff leave to amend, leaving open the possibility that more detailed factual allegations could revive the case.
