Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek

District of Columbia

Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 6, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0533

StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek (Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek, (D.D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Unable to extract the content from this file. Please try reading the original.notices in their entirety.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 550 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant created a “false sense of urgency” by using the title of an attorney. Compl. ‘J 62; P1. Mem. at 24-25. This argument is also unavailing. The collection letter clearly and unambiguously states that Dufek is acting as a debt collector, not as an attorney. Compl. at Ex. A. Furthermore, the only time period referenced in the letter is 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter, and that disclosure is expressly mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The references to 30 days in the letter are limited to the following notices required by the FDCPA: (1) when the debt will be assumed valid, (2) when an offer to provide verification if requested, and (3) when an offer to provide the name and address of the original creditor must be provided. Compl. at Ex. A; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

Finally, plaintiff alleges certain similar violations of the DCCPPA. See Compl.

W 17, 20-34. However, these fail for the additional reason that DCCPPA does not apply to plaintiff because plaintiff is not a “consumer” within the meaning of DC. law. The DCCPPA defines “consumer” as a “person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (or lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co—obligor or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice.” DC. Code § 28-3901(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff does not allege that she

purchased or leased any goods or services from defendant, only that there was a loan

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unable to extract the content from this file. Please try reading the original.notices in their entirety.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 550 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant created a “false sense of urgency” by using the title of an attorney. Compl. ‘J 62; P1. Mem. at 24-25. This argument is also unavailing. The collection letter clearly and unambiguously states that Dufek is acting as a debt collector, not as an attorney. Compl. at Ex. A. Furthermore, the only time period referenced in the letter is 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter, and that disclosure is expressly mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The references to 30 days in the letter are limited to the following notices required by the FDCPA: (1) when the debt will be assumed valid, (2) when an offer to provide verification if requested, and (3) when an offer to provide the name and address of the original creditor must be provided. Compl. at Ex. A; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

Finally, plaintiff alleges certain similar violations of the DCCPPA. See Compl.

W 17, 20-34. However, these fail for the additional reason that DCCPPA does not apply to plaintiff because plaintiff is not a “consumer” within the meaning of DC. law. The DCCPPA defines “consumer” as a “person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (or lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co—obligor or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice.” DC. Code § 28-3901(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff does not allege that she

purchased or leased any goods or services from defendant, only that there was a loan

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Law Office of David Sean Dufek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-law-office-of-david-sean-dufek-dcd-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack