FDCPA Violation Complaint - Washington

COMPLAINT — FDCPA AND WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT VIOLATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Parties
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I — Federal FDCPA Violations
7. Count II — Washington Collection Agency Act
8. Count III — Washington Consumer Protection Act
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Jury Demand
12. Signature Block
13. Certificate of Service
14. Washington Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [_______________]

NO. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; JURY DEMAND

(Violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; the Washington Collection Agency Act, RCW Chapter 19.16; and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW Chapter 19.86)

2. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff"), a Washington consumer, against Defendant [DEBT COLLECTOR NAME] ("Defendant") for unlawful debt-collection practices, including harassment, false and misleading representations, third-party disclosures, and continued collection after dispute, in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Washington Collection Agency Act ("WCAA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA").

2. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages under RCW § 19.86.090 (capped at $25,000), declaratory and injunctive relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney fees.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claims under Article IV, § 6 of the Washington Constitution and RCW § 2.08.010. The Court has concurrent jurisdiction over the federal FDCPA claim per 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), which authorizes suit in "any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction."

4. Venue is proper in [_______________] County under RCW § 4.12.025 because Defendant transacts business in this county and a substantial part of the unlawful conduct occurred where Plaintiff resides and received Defendant's communications.

4. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] is a natural person residing in [_______________] County, Washington, and is a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) and a "debtor" within the meaning of RCW § 19.16.100(6).

6. Defendant [DEBT COLLECTOR NAME] is a [corporation / LLC / collection agency] organized under the laws of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS]. Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another, and is therefore a "debt collector" under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and a "collection agency" or "out-of-state collection agency" under RCW § 19.16.100(4)–(5). Defendant is licensed (or required to be licensed) by the Washington State Department of Licensing pursuant to RCW § 19.16.110.

7. Defendant [INDIVIDUAL COLLECTOR NAME] is a natural person and a "debt collector" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and an employee of a licensee subject to RCW § 19.16.250, who personally engaged in the conduct alleged below.

5. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On or about [DATE], Defendant began attempting to collect from Plaintiff an alleged consumer debt in the amount of approximately $[AMOUNT] (the "Debt"). The Debt arose out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the transaction were primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).

9. Defendant placed approximately [NUMBER] telephone calls to Plaintiff between [DATE] and [DATE], including calls placed before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) and RCW § 19.16.250(12) (which prohibits communicating with a debtor at "unusual hours" or with such frequency as to be unreasonable).

10. Defendant communicated with Plaintiff more than three times in a single week and/or more than once at Plaintiff's place of employment in a single week, in violation of RCW § 19.16.250(13).

11. On or about [DATE], Plaintiff sent Defendant a written request to cease communications. 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c). Despite receipt, Defendant continued to call and write Plaintiff.

12. Defendant communicated with [third party — e.g., Plaintiff's employer / family member / neighbor] on [DATE] and disclosed that Plaintiff allegedly owed the Debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) and RCW § 19.16.250(8).

13. In its written communications dated [DATE], Defendant misrepresented the character, amount, or legal status of the Debt by [DESCRIBE — e.g., adding unauthorized fees, misstating the principal balance, threatening litigation Defendant did not intend to pursue], in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and RCW § 19.16.250(15)–(17).

14. Defendant used a written communication that simulates judicial process or a government document, in violation of RCW § 19.16.250(10) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9), (13).

15. Defendant failed to provide the validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) within five days of its initial communication, and continued collection activity after Plaintiff's timely written dispute without obtaining and mailing verification, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

16. Defendant [reported / threatened to report] the disputed Debt to one or more consumer-reporting agencies without disclosing that the Debt was disputed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8).

17. Defendant's conduct described above is part of a standardized practice directed at numerous Washington consumers, conducted in the course of its licensed (or required-to-be-licensed) collection-agency business, and has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.

18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including emotional distress, embarrassment, lost time, out-of-pocket costs, and damage to credit reputation.

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

19. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–18.

20. Defendant violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to:

• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(1) — communications at unusual or inconvenient times or places;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b) — improper third-party communications;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) — continued contact after a cease-communication request;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692d — harassment or abuse;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692e — false, deceptive, or misleading representations;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) — failure to disclose dispute to consumer-reporting agencies;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9), (13) — simulated judicial process or government documents;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692f — unfair or unconscionable means;
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692g — failure to provide validation notice and continued collection after dispute.

21. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, statutory damages of up to $1,000, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees.

7. COUNT II — WASHINGTON COLLECTION AGENCY ACT (RCW § 19.16.100 et seq.)

22. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–18.

23. Defendant is a "collection agency" or "out-of-state collection agency" subject to RCW Chapter 19.16. Defendant is required to be licensed by the Washington State Department of Licensing under RCW § 19.16.110.

24. Defendant violated the prohibitions of RCW § 19.16.250, including subsections (8) (third-party disclosure), (10) (simulating legal process), (12) (unusual-hour calls), (13) (excessive contact frequency), (15)–(17) (misrepresentations), and [ADDITIONAL SUBSECTIONS].

25. Pursuant to RCW § 19.16.450, where a licensee or its employee violates RCW § 19.16.250 and "as a result of such violation, an action is brought against the debtor, neither the licensee, the customer of the licensee, nor any other person seeking to collect on the claim shall recover any interest, service charge, attorneys' fees, collection costs, delinquency charge, or any other fees or charges otherwise legally chargeable to the debtor."

26. Pursuant to RCW § 19.16.440, every violation of RCW § 19.16.250 is hereby declared to be an unfair act or practice or unfair method of competition in the conduct of trade or commerce for the purpose of the application of the WCPA, RCW Chapter 19.86. This per se designation satisfies elements one and two of the Hangman Ridge test.

8. COUNT III — WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (RCW § 19.86.020, § 19.86.090)

27. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–18.

28. Defendant's conduct constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, in violation of RCW § 19.86.020.

29. Plaintiff satisfies each of the five elements of Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 784–85, 719 P.2d 531 (1986), as follows:

• (1) Unfair or deceptive act or practice. Defendant's standardized debt-collection conduct, including the violations described in Paragraphs 9–16, has the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public. By force of RCW § 19.16.440, Defendant's violations of RCW § 19.16.250 are per se unfair or deceptive acts.
• (2) In trade or commerce. Defendant's debt-collection activity is conducted in the course of its trade or commerce as a licensed (or required-to-be-licensed) collection agency in Washington, within the meaning of RCW § 19.86.010(2).
• (3) Public interest impact. Defendant's conduct affects the public interest because (a) Defendant used standardized form letters and dialer-driven call practices directed at Plaintiff and other Washington consumers similarly situated; (b) Defendant's conduct is likely to be repeated; (c) the violation occurred in the course of Defendant's regulated business; and (d) Defendant has solicited and contacted multiple Washington consumers and there is a real and substantial potential for repetition. RCW § 19.86.093; Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790–91.
• (4) Injury to business or property. Plaintiff suffered injury to property in the form of out-of-pocket expenses (postage, telephone charges, mileage, lost wages from time spent disputing the Debt, and harm to credit reputation). Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009) (investigation costs are cognizable WCPA injury).
• (5) Causation. Plaintiff's injuries were the direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct.

30. Pursuant to RCW § 19.86.090, Plaintiff is entitled to:

• Injunctive relief to enjoin further violations;
• Recovery of actual damages sustained;
• The Court's discretionary trebling of actual damages, NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 for the trebling enhancement; and
• Costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees.

9. DAMAGES

31. Actual Damages. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, anxiety, sleep disruption, embarrassment, lost time, out-of-pocket expenses, and damage to credit reputation in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $[AMOUNT].

32. FDCPA Statutory Damages. Up to $1,000 under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A).

33. WCPA Treble Damages. Up to three times actual damages, with the trebling enhancement capped at $25,000, under RCW § 19.86.090.

34. Attorney Fees and Costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); RCW § 19.86.090.

35. Forfeiture of Charges. Forfeiture of all interest, service charges, attorney fees, collection costs, and delinquency charges otherwise chargeable to Plaintiff, pursuant to RCW § 19.16.450.

36. Equitable Relief. Declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from further unlawful collection conduct.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

• A. Enter judgment against Defendant for actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
• B. Award statutory damages of up to $1,000 per Defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A);
• C. Treble Plaintiff's actual damages under RCW § 19.86.090, up to the $25,000 statutory cap on the trebling enhancement;
• D. Award reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and RCW § 19.86.090;
• E. Order forfeiture of interest, service charges, fees, and costs pursuant to RCW § 19.16.450;
• F. Issue declaratory and injunctive relief against further unlawful conduct;
• G. Award pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum lawful rate; and
• H. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

11. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable as a matter of right pursuant to CR 38 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

12. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], WSBA No. [####]

Counsel for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; JURY DEMAND upon all parties of record by [Washington State Courts E-Filing / U.S. Mail / personal service] at the addresses below:

[SERVICE LIST]

[________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

14. WASHINGTON PRACTICE NOTES

• Forum selection. The FDCPA permits filing in any court of competent jurisdiction. Federal court (W.D. Wash. or E.D. Wash.) is often preferred for FDCPA-experienced bench. Washington Superior Court permits broader WCPA discovery and ready access to state-law per-se hooks under RCW § 19.16.440.
• Hangman Ridge five-element test. A private WCPA claim requires: (1) an unfair or deceptive act, (2) in trade or commerce, (3) public interest impact, (4) injury to business or property, and (5) causation. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 784–85, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). All five must be pleaded; failure on any one is fatal. Public interest is most often litigated. RCW § 19.86.093 codifies factors for public-interest impact in business-to-business cases.
• Per se WCPA hook for collection conduct. RCW § 19.16.440 declares every violation of RCW § 19.16.250 to be a per se unfair or deceptive act for WCPA purposes. This satisfies elements one and two of Hangman Ridge without the need to litigate "capacity to deceive." Public-interest impact, injury, and causation must still be pleaded.
• Limitations periods. FDCPA: 1 year from violation, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). WCPA: 4 years, RCW § 19.86.120. The continuing-violation doctrine may extend the trigger date for both. See Vance v. C-3 Inc., 16 Wn. App. 2d 712 (2021).
• Treble damages cap. RCW § 19.86.090 caps the discretionary trebling award at $25,000 for the enhancement only. Underlying actual damages and reasonable attorney fees are uncapped. Trebling is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Mandatory attorney fees. A prevailing WCPA plaintiff is entitled to "the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." RCW § 19.86.090. Fees are mandatory, not discretionary, on prevailing party. Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24 (1997).
• Injury element — broad construction. Investigation costs, postage, time, and credit-reputation harm satisfy the injury element. Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009). Emotional distress alone is generally NOT a cognizable WCPA injury (Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 181 Wn.2d 412 (2014)); plead pecuniary harm.
• Forfeiture remedy. RCW § 19.16.450 strips a violating collector (and its assignees) of interest, service charges, attorney fees, collection costs, and delinquency charges otherwise legally chargeable. Plead forfeiture as a separate prayer.
• Licensing. Verify Defendant's collection-agency license at the Washington State Department of Licensing (https://dol.wa.gov/business-and-professions/collection-agencies). An unlicensed collector independently violates RCW § 19.16.110 and FDCPA § 1692e(5).
• Bona fide error defense. Defendant may assert 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). Discovery of compliance procedures, training, and audit logs is appropriate.
• CR 11 / Rule 11 considerations. Plead the Hangman Ridge elements with factual specificity. Vague public-interest allegations (e.g., "Defendant could harm others") are routinely dismissed.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-41/subchapter-V
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692g (validation) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692g
• 15 U.S.C. § 1692k (civil liability) — https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692k
• RCW Chapter 19.86 (WCPA) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86&full=true
• RCW § 19.86.090 (treble damages) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.86.090
• RCW § 19.86.120 (statute of limitations)
• RCW Chapter 19.16 (Collection Agencies) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.16&full=true
• RCW § 19.16.250 (Prohibited practices) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.16.250
• RCW § 19.16.440 (Per se WCPA violation) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.16.440
• RCW § 19.16.450 (Forfeiture of charges)
• Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986) — five-element WCPA test
• Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009) — injury element
• Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs., Inc., 181 Wn.2d 412, 334 P.3d 529 (2014) — pecuniary injury required
• Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24, 948 P.2d 816 (1997) — mandatory fee shifting
• Washington State Department of Licensing — Collection Agencies — https://dol.wa.gov/business-and-professions/collection-agencies
• Washington Attorney General Consumer Protection — https://www.atg.wa.gov/consumer-protection
• CFPB Debt Collection Rule (Reg. F), 12 C.F.R. Part 1006

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Washington must review and customize this document before filing. Statutory citations and damage caps change; verify all authorities at app.leg.wa.gov and atg.wa.gov before use.