Class Representative, Counsel Doom Debt Collection Lawsuit

A Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit against New York law firm Forster & Garbus LLP won’t be going forward as a class action because both the chosen plaintiff and class counsel are inadequate, the Eastern District of New York said.

Matthew Russell was convinced by his wife and by his attorney to serve as the named plaintiff in the suit against F&G and the companies that had acquired credit card debt from Credit One Bank, Judge Joanna Seybert said Monday.

Based on his deposition testimony and other disclosures in the record, Russell “has virtually no familiarity with this action and no understanding of his role as class representative,” Seybert said.

Adequacy as class representative is one of the most important class certification factors under Rule 23, Seybert said. A proposed representative must have an interest in vigorously pursuing the class’s claims, and shouldn’t have personal interests that are adverse to those of the class members.

Russell went months without contacting his attorney, Mitchell L. Pashkin in Huntington, N.Y., and hadn’t read the filed complaint until the day of his deposition, Seybert noted.

She granted F&G’s motion to deny class certification.

Pashkin’s conduct earned an additional discussion from Seybert, and another finding of inadequacy. Educating Russell on his duties and responsibilities was Pashkin’s responsibility, she said.

Pashkin has represented numerous plaintiffs in FDCPA lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, but he also has a history of abandoning cases and having them dismissed for lack of prosecution, Seybert said.

The case will advance on Russell’s individual FDCPA claims only, Seybert said.

F&G represented itself.

The case is Russell v. Forster & Garbus LLP, E.D.N.Y., No. 17-cv-04274, 3/16/20.