In Bonanno v. New Penn Financial dba Shellpoint Mtg. Servicing, Case No: 5:17-cv-229-Oc-30PRL, 2017 WL 3219517 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2017), the District Court found that the FDCPA affords no right to punitive damages.
Shellpoint argues Bonanno’s punitive damages and injunctive relief claims under the FDCPA should also be dismissed. The Court agrees. Damages exceeding the $1,000 cap in section 1692k(a)(2)(A) are not allowed. Lee v. Sec. Check, LLC, No. 309-CV-421-J-12TEM, 2009 WL 2044687, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2009) (citing to several decisions reaching the same conclusion). Neither is equitable relief in the form of an injunction. Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Serv., 677 F.2d 830, 834 (11th Cir. 1982).
The District Court also found the TCPA inapplicable to landlines.
Bonanno is suing Shellpoint solely under section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), according to the Complaint (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 38 and 68), even though she alleges Shellpoint called her cellular and landline phones. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2, 35, 42, 59, 68–69, and 71). Bonanno failed to allege why calls to her landline phone would be a violation of the TCPA under section 228(b)(1)(A)(iii) since calls to a landline are generally subject to violations of section 227(b)(1)(B) instead. So the Court concludes the allegations related to calls to Bonanno’s landline phone do not give rise to a TCPA violation as currently pleaded