SANDERS v. AMERICAN CORADIUS INTERNATIONAL LLC
2:22-cv-02652-JXN-CLW
D.N.J.Dec 4, 2023Background
- Sanders filed a state-court action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); American Coradius removed to federal court.
- The Court previously dismissed Sanders' §1692e claim with prejudice, and dismissed §§1692d and 1692f claims without prejudice, permitting an amended complaint.
- In the amended complaint Sanders alleged at least 16 calls from American over a 30‑day period (Apr–May 2021), including calls on weekends; she also alleged she never spoke with an American representative during those calls.
- American moved to dismiss, arguing Sanders still failed to plead facts showing intent to annoy, abuse, or harass or any misconduct beyond ordinary collection calls.
- The Court held that 16 calls in 30 days, without allegations of calls made back-to-back, unusual hours, offensive content, or other pattern, did not plausibly show intent to harass under §1692d(5); the Court also found §1692f allegations duplicative and not cured.
- Result: the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to §§1692d, 1692d(5), and 1692f; the previously dismissed §1692e claim remained dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1692e claim may proceed | Sanders reasserted §1692e false/misleading conduct claim | American argued prior dismissal controls and claim lacks merit | §1692e was already dismissed; court did not revive it (remains dismissed) |
| Whether 16 calls in 30 days and weekend calls state a §1692d/1692d(5) claim (intent to harass) | 16 calls and weekend calls show repeated/continuous contact intended to harass | 16 calls over 30 days, no consecutive calls, no unusual hours or abusive content — insufficient to infer intent | Dismissed with prejudice: allegations do not plausibly show intent to annoy/harass |
| Whether multiple calls state a §1692f (unfair/unconscionable) claim | Repeated calls constitute unfair or unconscionable means of collection | §1692f cannot be used to repackage conduct covered by other FDCPA provisions; no new misconduct pled | Dismissed with prejudice: duplicative and not cured by amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes pleading standard requiring plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility pleading framework)
- Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (courts accept well-pleaded facts and draw reasonable inferences for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2010) (three-part Iqbal/Twombly inquiry in Third Circuit)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (FDCPA purpose and interpretation)
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (elements to state FDCPA claim)
- Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2006) (objective least sophisticated debtor standard)
- Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.N.J. 2013) (§1692f is a catch-all and not a vehicle to duplicate other FDCPA provisions)
- Blair v. Fed. Pac. Credit Co., LLC, 563 F. Supp. 3d 347 (D.N.J. 2021) (least sophisticated debtor standard applied in FDCPA context)