Gordon & Rees New Jersey Team Earns Trio of Complete Victories in One Week

In Shoulars v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-18560 (D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas granted the firm's motion to dismiss with, finding that the plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., were without merit, and that any potential amendments to the complaint would be futile. The plaintiff alleged that a debt collection letter she received from the client offering to take 40% off her balance and then presenting two settlement options (only one of which would have resulted in 40% off her balance) violated the FDCPA. The plaintiff further alleged that the settlement options overshadowed the 30-day validation notice required by the FDCPA, a “reconciliation statement” should have been included in the letter, and a debtor would be confused as to whether the settlement payment had to be mailed or received by the deadline set forth in the letter. The Court concluded that the letter did not violate the FDCPA as even the least sophisticated consumer would understand that the second settlement option (which would have resulted in 20% off her balance) was an alternative to the first settlement option (which would have resulted in 40% off her balance), the settlement options did not overshadow the validation notice, and the failure to identify whether the settlement payment had to be mailed or received by the deadline was immaterial. Even when faced with multiple claims based on a number of theories and sets of facts, the Gordon & Rees team was able to convince the Court to rule that no FDCPA violation had occurred, which resulted in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

In, Bangiyeva v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 1:20-cv-06016-LDH-RER (E.D.N.Y), Judge LaShann Dearcy Hall dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the firm’s clients did not violate the FDCPA. The plaintiff alleged that clients violated the FDCPA by sending him a debt collection letter that included multiple references to sending the debt to a law firm if he did not pay, thereby allegedly overshadowing the validation notice with their numerosity. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that repeated references to legal action, coupled with a clear statement of the debtor’s FDCPA rights, does not violate the FDCPA. Accepting the firm's arguments, the Court found that “Plaintiff provides no basis for the Court to conclude that the Letter is ‘harass[ing], oppress[ive], or abus[ive],’” and that “[d]efendants simply did not violate the [FDCPA].” In an attempt to stave off dismissal, the plaintiff amended the Complaint to allege that the amount due listed on the letter was incorrect. However, the Court dismissed those claims as time-barred under the statue of limitations because such claims did not relate back to the claims in the original iteration of the complaint.

In Darwin v. Municipal Credit Union, Case No. 1:21-cv-01240 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge William Kuntz granted the firm’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to properly allege multiple violations of the FDCPA, identity theft, and invasion of privacy in connection with a debt he owed to the defendant credit union. Interestingly, the Court’s first ground for dismissal centered on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his FDCPA claims pursuant to TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Utilizing Ramirez, the Court found that the plaintiff’s allegation of a bare statutory violation without concrete harm deprived the Court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the Court further found that the complaint could not survive even if there was jurisdiction because plaintiff’s claims were barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. Finally, the Court found plaintiff failed to identify any specific communication or other conduct on which his claims were based.

Both the clients and Gordon & Rees are thrilled with these victories and with creating good precedent for the consumer finance industry.