The Cost of Faulty Service of Process

The Cost of Faulty Service of Process

On May 11, a defendant collection attorney (defendant) filed a petition to dismiss an FDCPA lawsuit, which the court partially granted and partially denied. The defendant was recruited by the creditor to initiate a collection litigation after the plaintiff missed a payment, according to the memorandum opinion and order. Despite the fact that the defendant filed a request for default judgment and a motion for attorney’s fees, which the plaintiff was not served with, the defendant still responded to the lawsuit. The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s attempt to have his employer deduct money from his earnings. The state court reviewed the case, nullified the default ruling, and mandated arbitration between the parties. The collection lawsuit was ultimately thrown out without a trial. In the current phase of the case, the plaintiff is suing the defendant, alleging that by improperly requesting default judgment, failing to serve the motion for default judgment, opposing his wage garnishment challenge, and requesting dishonest attorney’s fees, he violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The defendant’s request to dismiss the claim for attorney fees and the clauses relating to wage garnishment was granted by the district court. The district court, however, turned down the petition to dismiss in light of the accusations involving the filing of the default judgment and the failure to serve. The defendant’s request for default judgment, according to the district court, “was more than a ‘procedural mishap’—it was a ‘false, fraudulent, or misleading representation  in connection with the collection of any obligation’ that seems to have resulted in a flawed default judgment being recorded.”