Rosario v. City of New York Comptroller

Background

Carlos Rosario, Jr., appearing without a lawyer, brought claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). He alleged that his vehicle was immobilized and booted in or about October 2022 because of nonpayment of fines arising from traffic and parking violations. He described the charges as unauthorized and sought damages from the City of New York Comptroller.

Rosario also alleged that his credit card had been used without authorization. He attached a document concerning a $77.52 school-zone speeding violation involving a vehicle with plate details “HOD4105 OH PAS.” He appeared to argue that his license plate was a “credit card” under TILA and that the New York City agency used it without authorization when it imposed the speeding fine.

Legal Standard

Because Rosario had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked legal power to hear them. Although courts interpret complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.

FDCPA Claim

The FDCPA prohibits harassing, deceptive, and misleading conduct by “debt collectors.” The court explained that the statute generally covers third-party collection agents collecting debts owed to someone else, not an entity collecting debts it is owed itself.

The court ruled that Rosario had not alleged FDCPA violations for two independent reasons. First, although immobilizing his car was unwelcome and inconvenient, he had not alleged conduct similar to the abusive tactics prohibited by the statute. Second, he had not alleged facts showing that the City of New York Comptroller qualified as a debt collector under the FDCPA. The court stated that a New York City agency enforcing civil fines and judgments owed to the City, rather than to a third party, is not a debt collector within the meaning of the statute.

The court therefore dismissed Rosario’s FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

TILA Claim

TILA defines a “credit card” as a card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing to obtain money, property, labor, or services on credit. It also defines “unauthorized use” in a provision concerning credit-card use.

The court held that Rosario’s argument misread TILA. A license plate is not a credit card because it is not a device existing to obtain money, property, labor, or services on credit. The court dismissed the TILA claim for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

State-Law Claims

The court stated that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—after dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction. Because it dismissed the federal claims at this early stage, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Rosario might have been asserting.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint but granted Rosario leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days if he wished to do so. The amended complaint would replace, rather than add to, the original complaint, so Rosario would have to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court directed that the amended pleading identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the requested relief.

The court stated that if Rosario did not file an amended complaint within the permitted period, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.