In Mueller v. I.C. Sys., No. 18-CV-336 (AMD) (RML), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70342, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2019), Judge Donnelly let an FDCPA case past the pleadings stage.
While the plaintiff’s contract with Liberty Power does include a check box describing the “customer” as a “corporation,” the plaintiff asserts that his intent in signing the contract was to obtain electricity for his home. The plaintiff represents that he has never owned or done business as a corporation, that he requested a personal account with Liberty Power, and the electricity was in fact used for “personal, family, or household purposes.” At this early stage, drawing all reasonable [*5] inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, I find that the plaintiff has sufficiently pled that he owed a consumer debt, rather than a commercial debt. See Mimroe v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 207 F. Supp. 3d 232, 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion to dismiss where plaintiff alleged a consumer debt and defendant did not demonstrate the debt was outside the scope of the FDCPA); Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC, No. 3:10-CV-244, 2010 WL 4683916, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2010) (plaintiff’s allegation that she incurred underlying debt for personal, family, or household purposes sufficient to deny motion for judgment on the pleadings); cf. Scarola, 638 F. App’x at 102-103 (debt from transactions related to a business telephone account was a commercial debt not covered by FDCPA).