A District Court judge in Illinois has partially granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not indicating in a letter that the plaintiff had 30 days to request the name and address of the original creditor, but denied a motion to dismiss a count that the defendant violated the FDCPA because it did not properly identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Africano-Domingo v. Miller & Steeno, P.C., and DNF Associates, LLC, can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from one of the defendants. The letter identified Kay Jewelers as the original creditor and DNF Associates as the current owner of the unpaid account. The letter did not specify who was the “current creditor” to whom the debt was owed.
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692g(a)(2) or the FDCPA by not identifying the current creditor and Section 1692g(a)(5) of the FDCPA by not explicitly stating that the plaintiff had 30 days to request the name and address of the original creditor.
Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, quickly granted the motion to dismiss the 1692g(a)(5) count of the complaint, ruling that the omission was a “bare procedural violation” of the FDCPA.
However, on the 1692g(a)(2) count of the complaint, Judge Pallmeyer ruled that there was nothing in the letter to provide any context that DNF Associates was the current creditor to whom the debt was owed. Saying the language used by the defendants was “ambiguous,” Judge Pallmeyer ruled that the plaintiff has standing to sue for that alleged violation.
