A federal judge has declined to alter her previous decision allowing a woman to sue a Colorado law firm that handles evictions on behalf of landlords, finding the allegations credibly stated a violation of federal debt collection law.

In December, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney refused to dismiss a lawsuit against Tschetter Sulzer P.C., which bills itself as “#1 in Colorado Evictions.” The firm is accused of making deceptive statements to renters in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Sweeney deemed that Tschetter Sulzer appeared to qualify as a debt collector whose directives to tenants facing eviction were misleading.

Tschetter Sulzer then asked Sweeney to reconsider, alleging she misinterpreted prior court precedent and the firm’s arguments. Alternatively, Tschetter Sulzer requested she allow the firm to appeal her ruling in lieu of letting the case continue in the trial court.

Sweeney was unmoved. Permitting a mid-case appeal would “protract the delay,” she wrote on March 15.

In January of last year, Shawnte Warden filed a lawsuit against Tschetter Sulzer intended as a class action on behalf of all tenants whose landlords used the firm to recover past-due rent or file an eviction. Warden’s claim centered around a “stipulation” Tschetter Sulzer sends to tenants, allegedly misrepresenting the eviction process.

In Warden’s case, she leased an apartment at the Mint Urban Infinity complex in Denver. Tschetter Sulzer filed eviction paperwork in January 2021 on behalf of landlord Glendale Properties I, asserting Warden owed nearly $4,000 in unpaid rent. Warden, who reportedly contracted COVID-19 and had lost her job, told Glendale Properties she planned to move out instead.

On Jan. 31, Warden viewed and signed Tschetter Sulzer’s stipulation. The agreement claimed it would “resolve your eviction” by giving the tenant 10 days to move out or address the reason for the eviction.

“The Landlord promises not to have you removed from the property by the sheriff” in that window, the stipulation read. If a tenant was unable to “work it out” but left the premises, the landlord “promises” to dismiss the eviction case. The renter would not have an eviction on their record to future landlords.

Finally, the stipulation indicated it “does not resolve money or damage issues between you and your landlord.”

Warden alleged the stipulation’s promise did not occur in her case, and Tschetter Sulzer only moved to dismiss her eviction case in 2022, after she filed her lawsuit. Further, the stipulation allegedly “tricks tenants” by neglecting to mention it takes three to six weeks for a sheriff’s office to execute a forced move-out, not just 10 days.

“The form Stipulation instills the mistaken belief in consumer tenants that the tenants will be able to occupy their homes longer by executing the Stipulation than they would receive if they, the tenants, contested the eviction action,” wrote Warden’s attorneys, who include state Rep. Steven Woodrow, D-Denver. “This is because, among other things, Tschetter conceals from the to-be-evicted tenants the fact that it takes additional time for successful landlords to secure eviction dates from the county Sheriff.”

Warden alleged a violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits false or misleading representations “in connection with the collection of any debt.“

Tschetter Sulzer moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it did not fit the definition of a “debt collector.”

“The Stipulation is clear that it only concerns possession of the property, and not unpaid rent or other money damages,” wrote the firm’s lawyers. “Because the alleged wrongful communications are not in connection with an obligation to pay money, the FDCPA does not apply.”

Sweeney disagreed with Tschetter Sulzer, finding the lawsuit alleged the firm had misled Warden into thinking the eviction case would end against her if she signed the stipulation.

“Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that she interpreted the representations in the Stipulation and Advisement to mean that she could stay within her rental residence for additional time and that any money claims against her would be dismissed upon vacating the unit,” Sweeney wrote on Dec. 5.

In response, Tschetter Sulzer claimed Sweeney had mistakenly decided it was a debt collector, even though the issue was not raised “by either party.” It also alleged the federal appeals court for Colorado should decide whether Tschetter Sulzer’s stipulation, which related “solely” to the issue of apartment occupancy, was connected to debt collection.

Sweeney again rejected the firm’s claims. She defended her finding that Tschetter Sulzer was a debt collector, and noted the firm had, in fact, argued why the label should not apply. Sweeney also deemed it disputed whether the stipulation was “solely” about the apartment itself and not Warden’s $4,000 debt.

“The Defendants cannot skirt the fact that they were retained by a landlord to resolve Plaintiff’s eviction due to failure to pay back rent,” she wrote last week.

The case is Warden v. Tschetter Sulzer P.C.