A Magistrate Court judge in Ohio has partially granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case against a collection law firm, finding that the firm failed to sufficiently support its defense after filing a lawsuit while a debt verification request was allegedly pending.
The background: The plaintiff received a collection letter in mid-November 2023 and allegedly submitted a written request for verification of the debt within the required 30-day window. The request was sent via certified mail and a return receipt showed it was signed for in December 2023.
- Despite this, the defendant filed a collection lawsuit in Ohio state court in February 2024. Months later, the state court ordered the defendant to provide verification of the debt, which it eventually indicated had been done.
- The defendant did not dispute much of the timeline but argued it had no record of receiving the verification request prior to filing suit.
- It pointed to internal policies requiring disputes to be logged and collection activity paused, suggesting that if the letter had been received and processed, litigation would not have been initiated.
The ruling: Judge Karen L. Litkovitz of the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sided with the plaintiff on the core 1692g(b) issue, finding that the evidence, including certified mail documentation, established that the verification request was sent and received.
- Critically, the judge rejected the defendant’s reliance on the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense. While the firm asserted that any violation was unintentional and that it maintained procedures to avoid such issues, the judge found those assertions lacking. She noted that the defendant failed to provide evidence explaining what actually went wrong, such as mishandling of mail or breakdowns in internal processing.
- Judge Litkovitz highlighted that generic policies are not enough. Procedures must be “reasonably adapted to avoid the particular error” at issue. Without evidence tying its policies to the specific failure in this case, the defense could not stand.
- However, the judge denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s 1692e claim, finding that the defendant’s use of alternative legal theories in the underlying lawsuit did not constitute a false or misleading representation under the FDCPA.
