Washington v. Stewart, Zlimen, & Jungers, LTD., 0:19-cv-00717

Plaintiffs JaRonda Washington and Nicole Smith separately sued debt collector Stewart, Zlimen & Jungers, Ltd. (SZJ) under the FDCPA based on conciliation-court statements of claim SZJ filed on behalf of LVNV Funding, LLC.
SZJ’s statements sought principal amounts plus an $85 filing fee and “plus disbursements.” Plaintiffs allege those references were false and made in bad faith because no recoverable disbursements could realistically be incurred.
Plaintiffs also allege SZJ violated a Ramsey County 2016 Amended Standing Order requiring parties to present documentation proving assignment/ownership of the debt; SZJ produced only a redacted computer printout and the conciliation court entered judgments for Plaintiffs for failure to show the particular debt was included in an assignment.
Plaintiffs brought claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f; SZJ moved to dismiss both complaints under Rule 12(b)(6).
The district court concluded Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible FDCPA claims and granted SZJ’s motions to dismiss in both cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether stating "plus disbursements" in the prayer/statement of claim violated § 1692e as false or deceptive	The disbursements claim was false and made in bad faith because no recoverable disbursements were possible and SZJ never intended to seek them	A prayer for relief (including disbursements) is a permissible good-faith request; Plaintiffs’ bad-faith allegation is conclusory and insufficient	Court: No plausible § 1692e claim; prayer-for-relief language ordinarily not actionable absent plausible bad-faith allegations
Whether failing to present documentation required by the 2016 Standing Order constituted an unfair or unconscionable means to collect in violation of § 1692f(1)	The Standing Order converted SZJ’s failure to produce assignment proof into an FDCPA violation	Compliance with a local rule or order does not automatically create an FDCPA claim; bringing suit that later fails does not alone violate FDCPA	Court: Alleged violation of the Standing Order does not plausibly state a § 1692f claim; FDCPA not a federal enforcement vehicle for every state or local rule violation

Haney v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 895 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2018) (prayer-for-relief statements to a court generally not FDCPA violations absent bad faith)
Hemmingsen v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., 674 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2012) (bringing an unsuccessful suit does not by itself make the suit an FDCPA violation)
Hill v. Accounts Receivable Servs., LLC, 888 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 2018) (inadequate documentation of assignment in state-court action did not constitute a materially false representation under § 1692e)
Carlson v. First Revenue Assurance, 359 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2004) (FDCPA not intended to convert every state-law collection violation into a federal claim)
Klein v. Credico Inc., 922 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 2019) (state-law licensing or technical violations do not necessarily give rise to § 1692f claims)
Gallego v. Northland Group Inc., 814 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a local administrative requirement in collection letters not basis for FDCPA liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)