FDCPA Violation Complaint (Minnesota)

COMPLAINT — FDCPA AND MINNESOTA COLLECTION AGENCY ACT VIOLATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Parties
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I — FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)
7. Count II — Minnesota Collection Agency Act (Minn. Stat. § 332.37)
8. Count III — Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. § 325F.69)
9. Public-Benefit Allegations (Ly v. Nystrom)
10. Damages
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Demand for Trial by Jury
13. Signature and Service Blocks
14. Certificate of Service
15. Minnesota Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case No. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.;
Minnesota Collection Agency Act, Minn. Stat. § 332.31 et seq.;
Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69)

2. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises from Defendant's unlawful efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Minnesota Collection Agency Act ("MCAA"), and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act ("MCFA").

2. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3.1. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the FDCPA claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3.2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Minnesota state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they form part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim.

3.3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in [COUNTY] County, Minnesota, and Plaintiff resides in this District.

4. PARTIES

4.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is a natural person who resides in [CITY, COUNTY], Minnesota, and is a "consumer" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

4.2. Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME] is a [corporation / LLC / partnership] organized under the laws of [STATE], with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS].

4.3. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another, and is a "debt collector" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

4.4. Defendant is also a "collection agency" or "debt buyer" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 332.31, subd. 3 and subd. 8, and is [is / is not] licensed in Minnesota under Minn. Stat. § 332.33.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5.1. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation in the amount of approximately $[AMOUNT] to [ORIGINAL CREDITOR] for [goods / services] primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (the "Debt").

5.2. The Debt was [charged off and sold / placed for collection] to Defendant on or about [DATE].

5.3. Beginning on or about [DATE], Defendant initiated a series of communications with Plaintiff in attempted collection of the Debt, including but not limited to:

• [Number] telephone calls to Plaintiff's [mobile / residential / workplace] number on [DATES / FREQUENCY];
• Written correspondence dated [DATE(S)] (attached as Exhibits [__]);
• [Email / text / social-media] messages on [DATE(S)].

5.4. [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC VIOLATION CONDUCT — e.g., (a) calls before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time; (b) calls to Plaintiff's workplace after Defendant was told that contact at work was prohibited; (c) communications to third parties disclosing the Debt; (d) threats of arrest, garnishment, or suit Defendant did not intend to and could not lawfully take; (e) misrepresentation of the amount, character, or legal status of the Debt; (f) failure to send the § 1692g(a) validation notice within five days of the initial communication; (g) continued collection after a written cease-and-desist or debt-validation request; (h) attempts to collect amounts not authorized by the underlying agreement or by law].

5.5. Plaintiff [on DATE] sent Defendant a written request disputing the Debt and demanding validation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Defendant [failed to respond / continued collection without providing validation / responded inadequately by] [DESCRIBE].

5.6. Defendant's conduct caused Plaintiff actual harm, including emotional distress, anxiety, sleep disruption, embarrassment, lost time and wages, expenses incurred to mitigate, and [other].

6. COUNT I — FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)

6.1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference.

6.2. Defendant violated the FDCPA, including without limitation:

• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a) — communicating at unusual or inconvenient times or places;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) — communicating with third parties about the Debt;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692d — engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692e — using false, deceptive, or misleading representations;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692f — using unfair or unconscionable means to collect the Debt;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692g — failing to send the required validation notice and/or continuing collection after a timely written dispute without first obtaining and mailing verification.

6.3. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a), Plaintiff is entitled to (i) actual damages; (ii) statutory damages up to $1,000.00; and (iii) costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

7. COUNT II — MINNESOTA COLLECTION AGENCY ACT (Minn. Stat. § 332.37)

7.1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference.

7.2. Defendant is a "collection agency" or "debt buyer" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 332.31, subd. 3 and subd. 8, and is subject to Minn. Stat. § 332.37.

7.3. Defendant violated Minn. Stat. § 332.37 by, among other things:

• (subd. 2) using or threatening to use methods of collection that violate Minnesota law;
• (subd. 3) falsely representing in any communication that the collection agency is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with any government entity;
• (subd. 9) transmitting any communication simulating legal or judicial process or that gives the appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental agency, or attorney at law when it is not;
• (subd. 12) violating any provision of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.;
• [CITE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS].

7.4. Under Minn. Stat. § 332.355, Defendant collection agency is responsible for the violations of its individual collectors.

7.5. A violation of Minn. Stat. § 332.37 is also actionable as a deceptive or unfair practice under Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 (Count III) and is enforceable through Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, which provides actual damages, costs, investigation costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and equitable relief.

8. COUNT III — MINNESOTA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (Minn. Stat. § 325F.69)

8.1. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference.

8.2. Defendant's conduct in attempting to collect the Debt constituted "fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1.

8.3. Defendant's conduct also constituted unfair and unconscionable practices under Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 8 because the conduct (i) offends Minnesota public policy as established by the MCAA and FDCPA; (ii) is unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous; and (iii) is substantially injurious to consumers.

8.4. Plaintiff is a "person injured" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, and seeks actual damages, costs (including investigation costs), reasonable attorney's fees, and equitable relief.

9. PUBLIC-BENEFIT ALLEGATIONS (Ly v. Nystrom)

9.1. Plaintiff brings this action not only on her own behalf but to vindicate a public interest in halting Defendant's pattern of unlawful collection practices, satisfying the public-benefit requirement of Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000).

9.2. On information and belief, Defendant uses standardized [scripts / form letters / dialer campaigns / portfolio collection workflows] that have been or will be deployed against numerous Minnesota consumers similarly situated to Plaintiff, including without limitation [approximate number / class description].

9.3. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief — independent of any individual damages — directing Defendant to cease the conduct alleged herein and to amend its written and telephonic collection scripts to comply with the FDCPA and MCAA.

9.4. Resolution of this action will benefit the public by deterring similar conduct directed at other Minnesota consumers, by clarifying the scope of MCAA prohibitions, and by enforcing licensure and conduct standards under Minn. Stat. ch. 332.

10. DAMAGES

10.1. Actual damages including emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, sleep disruption, lost wages, mileage, postage, telephone charges, and out-of-pocket costs to mitigate Defendant's conduct.

10.2. Statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) up to $1,000.00 per Plaintiff per FDCPA action.

10.3. Costs and reasonable attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, including costs of investigation.

10.4. Equitable and injunctive relief restraining Defendant from further violations.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant for:

• A. Actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• B. Statutory damages of $1,000.00 under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);
• C. Costs of suit, costs of investigation, and reasonable attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a;
• D. Permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendant from further FDCPA, MCAA, and MCFA violations;
• E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• F. Such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.

12. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).

13. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Minn. Att'y Reg. No. [####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, MN ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I caused the foregoing Complaint to be filed via the Court's CM/ECF system, which will serve notice of electronic filing on all counsel of record. A copy was also served on Defendant by [summons and complaint via process server / U.S. Marshal / certified mail per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4].

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

15. MINNESOTA PRACTICE NOTES

• Forum. FDCPA confers concurrent jurisdiction; Plaintiff may proceed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota or in Minnesota state district court. Federal court is generally preferred for FDCPA discovery and fee jurisprudence.
• Limitations. FDCPA: one (1) year from violation, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). MCFA: six (6) years, Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(2). MCAA: six years (subject to revisor recodification post-2014).
• Public-benefit requirement (Ly v. Nystrom). A private MCFA claim under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a requires proof that the cause of action benefits the public. Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000). Single-transaction enrichment claims are routinely dismissed. Plead pattern-and-practice and seek injunctive relief.
• Repeal of Minn. Stat. § 332.45. The MCAA's prior civil-penalty provision was repealed by 2014 Minn. Laws ch. 222, art. 1, § 58. Practitioners citing § 332.45 as the source of a private right of action are citing a non-existent statute. Channel MCAA enforcement through § 332.37 → § 325F.69 → § 8.31, subd. 3a.
• Licensing. All collection agencies and debt buyers operating in Minnesota must be licensed by the Department of Commerce under Minn. Stat. § 332.33. Unlicensed collection is itself unlawful and may be enjoined.
• Debt Fairness Act (2024). For medical debts, also consult Minn. Stat. ch. 332C, which adds protections including limits on credit-report harm and required disclosures.
• Bona fide error. The FDCPA's bona-fide-error defense (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)) applies only to clerical and factual mistakes, not legal errors per Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010).

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. — Fair Debt Collection Practices Act — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41/subchapter-V
• Minn. Stat. ch. 332 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/332/full
• Minn. Stat. § 332.31 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/332.31
• Minn. Stat. § 332.37 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/332.37
• Minn. Stat. § 332.355 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/332.355
• Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/325F.69
• Minn. Stat. § 8.31 — https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/8.31
• Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000) — https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2000/c699565.html
• Collins v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003) (public benefit applied)
• Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010)
• Minnesota Department of Commerce — Collection Agency Licensee Search — https://mn.gov/commerce/
• CFPB — Debt Collection — https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/debt-collection/

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Minnesota must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.