We Defend You Against
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.

The Langel firm will defend consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. In appropriate cases, we may investigate claims against Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.

As of August 2013, Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. has filed at least 151 cases in Queens County alone. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. is mainly represented by Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. purchases defaulted consumer debt to collect and sue on them. Its affiliated name is Resurgent Capital Services, LLC.

Court Denies Resurgent Capital's Motion to Amend, and Dismisses Action with Prejudice for Failure to Identify Proper Plaintiff

In Resurgent Capital Services, LLC v. Mackey (N.Y. Dist. Ct. Nassau County 2011), the District Court of Nassau County held that a defendant consumer was deprived of due process by the failure of Resurgent Capital's counsel to identify the correct plaintiff in the matter.

Resurgent Capital filed suit against a defendant in 2010. According to its complaint, Resurgent Capital was the "purchaser and assignee" of an account that it acquired from Capital One. However, Resurgent Capital was not the purchaser of the account in question.

Resurgent Capital's counsel filed a motion to amend the caption in 2011, seeking to amend the caption "only to the extent of amending the name of plaintiff in [the] matter to: LVNV Funding LLC from Resurgent Capital Services, LLC." Counsel's affirmation did not explain how or why Resurgent Capital was originally named as the plaintiff.

The court found it could not grant the motion under the CPLR, as counsel's "request to 'amend' the caption involve[d] neither a party's 'transfer of interest' to another, nor the correction of a mere misnomer." Instead, the motion presented a "fundamental and fatal defect" in failing to properly identify the plaintiff. Because properly identifying a plaintiff is a basic requirement of due process, the court dismissed the action since Resurgent Capital was not the lawful assignee of the underlying debt. Further, because Resurgent Capital had "no legitimate interest in the subject claim," the court dismissed the action with prejudice as to Resurgent Capital and its related entities.

Resurgent Capital Services, LP sued in New York Class Action for Misleading Litigation Activities, Including Inflating Debt Amounts

Resurgent Capital Services, LP accused of inflating debt amounts by adding court costs not yet reduced to judgment. Dismissal motion denied. Fritz v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP 2013 WL 3821479, (Eastern District, New York, 2013).

Eastern District of New York Holds that Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Claim against Resurgent Capital under the FDCPA

The District Court of the Eastern District of New York held that a plaintiff bringing a putative class action against Resurgent Capital lacked standing to bring a claim under the FDCPA in Schwartz v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP (E.D.N.Y. 2009).

The plaintiff in this action, Yitzchok Schwartz, received a debt collection notice addressed to a "Cynthia A. c/o Yitzchok Schwartz." The notice referred to an alleged debt, and listed the prior creditor and an account number. Plaintiff Schwartz's name appeared nowhere in the document mailed by Resurgent Capital, except for the "c/o" line in the address. It was unclear how the letter came into the plaintiff's possession, and the plaintiff did not allege that he had any relationship with Cynthia A.

The plaintiff contended that certain parts of the collection letter were overshadowing or contradictory of rights given in the validation notice, and thus violated the FDCPA. However, Resurgent Capital moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff had no standing under the FDCPA because he was not a "'consumer' within the meaning of the FDPCA, [did] not 'stand in the shoes' of a consumer, and did not experience 'injurious exposure'" to the debt-collection practices of Resurgent Capital.

The court agreed with Resurgent Capital that the plaintiff was not a "consumer" for the purposes of the FDCPA. The plaintiff did not allege that he was obligated to pay the debt referred to in the collection letter, nor was there a plausible reading of the letter that would support an argument that Resurgent Capital was alleging plaintiff was obligated to pay. The letter solely referred to "Cynthia A." and her account information. Where a plaintiff who is not the debt consumer also does not stand in the shoes of a consumer or does not plead injurious exposure to a debt collection letter, the plaintiff will lack standing to bring action.

Plaintiff also brought action under the FDCPA with regard to false, deceptive or misleading representation. Resurgent Capital argued that here, too, the plaintiff lacked standing. While this section of the FDCPA is not explicitly limited to "the consumer," the court held that "the FDCPA does not grant standing to any individual who may happen to come across a debt collection letter." Here, "the plaintiff 'merely…read the letter containing' the supposedly misleading and overshadowing language."

Accordingly, Resurgent Capital's motion for summary judgment was granted due to the plaintiff's lack of standing.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. Biographical Information

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. is a foreign limited partnership incorporated in Delaware and is principally located at 55 Beattie Place, Greenville, South Carolina, 29601. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. is licensed (#1204239) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.

Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.