A recent class action suit has been filed by a New Jersey man against debt collection law firm, Rubin & Rothman, LLP alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act including use of misleading debt collection tactics. He also alleges that the firm files hundreds of lawsuits each year against consumers in New Jersey using a computer-generated, mass-produced complaint template that implies an attorney is aggressively pursuing their outstanding debts when in reality the debts have not been looked at by an attorney or investigated by the firm.
Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York and New Jersey creditors’ rights law firm. The firm represents debt buyers and other debt-collection companies such as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Capital One Bank, Citibank, GE Money Bank, and Sears Credit Cards. Additionally, the firm also represents National Collegiate Student Loan on defaulted private student loan debt. The law firm is also a member of professional trade groups such as National Retail Association of Collection Attorneys and the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals International.
Richard Dickon v. Rubin & Rothman LLC began after Dickon began to fall behind on his auto loan payment on or around August 2014. The debt was transferred to Rubin & Rothman for collection on or around November 2014. Shortly after, Dickon received a debt collection letter regarding an auto loan payment to Toyota. The letter stated that he owed $8,500 and claimed that a licensed attorney was involved in his case and would be pursuing litigation regarding his debt plus attorney’s fees.
Dickon’s complaint alleges that the FDCPA guarantees that regardless of the amount owed, the debtor must be treated reasonably and the Act itself is to be construed to apply to the “least sophisticated consumer to protect against deceptive collection letters.” He argues that any consumer who received a letter of this type would interpret it to mean the firm is aggressively pursuing debt collection litigation, when in fact the letters are mass produced and falsely represent the legal status of the debt obligation. Dickon alleges that by tricking him into believing that a creditor was accruing expenses related to his debt and portraying that he may owe late fees and attorney expenses that the firm’s acts constitute violations under the FDCPA. These violations could result in statutory damages of approximately $1,000 per violation.