Alert

Separate Actions Against a Residential Tenant in Different Courts Could Constitute Abusive Collection Practices Under the FDCPA

October 9, 2024

On September 30, 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied dismissal of plaintiff-tenant’s claim against her landlord’s counsel for abusive collection practices in violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, finding that the commencement of more than one suit against the same consumer in different courts could potentially violate the FDCPA prohibition on abusive acts or practices.[1]

Case Background

In Onfroy, plaintiff was initially sued for unpaid rent and eviction in the housing court. However, before default judgment was obtained in that case, defendants commenced another action against plaintiff in the Supreme Court for unpaid rent, covering a different period of time than the unpaid rent sought in the housing court case. Defendants then obtained default judgment for unpaid rent and attorney’s fees in the Supreme Court action. Nonetheless, before default judgment was obtained from the Supreme Court, defendants filed yet another action in the housing court, seeking the same unpaid rent as in the Supreme Court action and a warrant of eviction. 

Plaintiff appeared at a few administrative conferences in the housing court case, incurring parking fees, reduced wages, and copying costs. Consequently, plaintiff sued her landlord and their attorneys, who moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. 

Court’s Ruling

Defendants argued that separate actions were required because only the housing court had jurisdiction over the eviction. However, the court determined that defendants did not demonstrate that one action could not suffice given the dispositions of the first housing case and the Supreme Court action. Accordingly, the court in Onfroy concluded that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for relief under Section 1692f.

The Takeaway

While the court recognized that further development of facts and arguments may result in a different ruling, Onfroy demonstrates that unless a debt-collector convincingly sets forth that an action in one forum would not have been enough to obtain all available relief, separate actions to collect unpaid rent and to evict a residential tenant could give rise to a claim for abusive collection practices in violation of the FDCPA.

[1] Onfroy v. Law Offices of Geoffrey T. Mott, P.C., 2024 WL 4350489 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024).

This item also appeared in the ABA Business Law Section’s October 2024 in Brief: Business Regulation & Regulated Industries.