The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s inaccurate statement on an information subpoena as to the name of the Clerk of the Court did not constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  See Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 2015 WL 3953754 (3d Cir. June 30, 2015).  In the case, a debt collector sent an information subpoena to a debtor.  The subpoena, which should list the name of the Superior Court clerk, instead listed the name of the former clerk of one of the local counties.  The debtor, who coincidentally happened to know the clerk  and knew he was not the clerk of the Superior Court, alleged a violation under the FDCPA, claiming that the debt collector had used a false statement in its debt collection efforts.  (15 USC 1692(e), (“[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”).  The district court granted the debt collector summary judgment, holding that the false statement was not material.  The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that a false statement must be material to violate the FDCPA.  Though it acknowledged that the FDCPA is a remedial statute and should be read broadly, and that the statute itself does not impose a materiality requirement, it noted that “[a] debtor simply cannot be confused, deceived, or misled by an incorrect statement unless it is material.”  The Court also noted that Circuit Courts in the 4^th, 6^th, 7^th and 9^th Circuits reached similar conclusions, and that no other Circuit Court has held differently.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com.