Gordon & Rees New York associates Kasey T. Mahoney, Alexander L. Bakes, and Partner Peter G. Siachos obtained a dismissal of a multi-count lawsuit in New York state court against a client that manages and services domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. The Supreme Court of Kings County, New York, found that the plaintiff's lawsuit failed to state a valid cause of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The plaintiff asserted three counts against the client for violations of separate provisions of the FDCPA arising out of the client's allegedly wrongful communications with the plaintiff, reporting that the plaintiff owed over fifteen thousand dollars. The plaintiff initially brought his action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The parties engaged in significant motion practice in the District Court, including Gordon & Rees moving to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint, and later jointly moving with the plaintiff to dismiss the district court action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff then filed the complaint in New York state court in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. In New York State court, Gordon & Rees moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on that two bases that the plaintiff did not have standing to maintain his lawsuit and his allegations were otherwise insufficient to state a claim for relief.
Ultimately, the New York state court agreed with the Gordon & Rees team and found that the plaintiff failed to allege that the client had violated the FDCPA in its dealings with the plaintiff. In doing so, the court analyzed both the plain-language statutory requirements of the FDCPA and the underlying policy of the consumer protection statute. Gordon & Rees also argued in the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint that the plaintiff failed to establish he had legal standing to bring the lawsuit because no concrete harm had been properly alleged. The court withheld judgment on the question of standing, relying entirely on the plaintiff's failure to state a violation of the FDCPA.
This matter is one of several similar matters brought against the client. The client and the firm are thrilled with the court's determination that the plaintiff failed to state a violation of the FDCPA and expect to rely on this result in related actions.