In Sanders v. Am. Coradius Int’l LLC, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-2652 (JXN)(CLW), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214456, at *10-11 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Neals confirms that 15 USC 1692f’s “catch-all” provision cannot be used as a fallback for conduct that already is regulated by other provisions of the FDCPA, such as call frequency and dunning letter disclosures.
Plaintiff alleges that ACI violated § 1692f of the FDCPA by “using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” Compl. ¶ 40. Section 1692f prohibits a debt collector from using any “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. The section “is considered to be a catch-all provision for conduct that is unfair but is not specifically identified in any other section of the FDCPA.” Rush v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 977 F. Supp. 2d 414, 432 (D.N.J. 2013) (citation omitted). “Courts have therefore determined that § 1692f cannot be the basis of a separate claim for complained of conduct that is already explicitly addressed by other sections of the FDCPA, . . . and routinely dismiss § 1692f claims when a plaintiff does not identify any misconduct beyond that which he asserts violates other provisions of the FDCPA.” Id. (punctuation and citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify any alleged misconduct beyond that which Plaintiff asserts violated other provisions of the FDCPA, nor does her opposition brief argue that she sufficiently alleged a claim under § 1692f.