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.
I will start this by saying I’m not quite sure what’s going on and what the plaintiff’s issues are, so there might be just as many questions when you are done reading this as you have right now. A collection law firm is being sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it filed a lawsuit to collect on an unpaid debt that did not exist, according to the complaint.
The background: The debt in question was allegedly incurred at some point prior to July 2023, according to the complaint. Last June, the defendant filed a lawsuit in state court in New York seeking to collect on the unpaid debt.
- Later that month, the defendant filed a false and fraudulent affidavit of service in support of the summons and complaint, followed by sending the summons and complaint directly to the plaintiff three days later. A week after that, the defendant send an “additional notice of lawsuit” to the plaintiff. That’s it. That is the sum total of the actions that led to the plaintiff filing this lawsuit. The defendants’ actions misrepresented the continued existence of an alleged debt, according to the complaint.
- The defendants’ actions frustrated the plaintiff and left him unable to “intelligently respond” to the defendants’ collection efforts because the plaintiff “could not adequately or informatively respond” to the defendants’ demand for payment.
The claims: The complaint accuses the defendant of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA by misrepresenting the existence of the alleged debt.
