Judge Arthur Spatt
On April 20, 2013, district court granted Van Gorden judgment in her 2011 suit claiming that Sharinn & Lipshie’s (S&L) July 27, 2011, letter attempting to collect a credit card debt to Walmart violated 15 USC §1692g(a)(4)—a provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)—by failing to convey to Van Gorden that to require S&L to send verification of the alleged debt or a copy of the judgment, she must solely dispute the alleged debt or a portion thereof. S&L also violated §1692g(a)(5) by failing to convey to Van Gorden that she was entitled to request the original creditor’s name and address without also having to dispute the alleged debt. However, due to a clerical error by her lawyer, Van Gorden did not submit proposed damages. District court dismissed her complaint, without prejudice, on Nov. 15, 2013. S&L did not oppose Van Gorden’s Dec. 3 motion seeking Rule 60(b)(1) relief from the April 20 and Nov. 13 orders on grounds of counsel’s mistake. Citing Eastwood Auto Body & Garage Inc. v. City of Waterbury and discussing Alvarado v. Manhattan Career Ctr. the court held that Van Gorden’s argument failed because Rule 60(b)(1) relief is not available based upon an attorney’s mistake.