A District Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in a case where the plaintiff attempted to use many of the current crop of greatest hits being claimed by individuals suing collection agencies.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Watson v. Premier Credit of North America can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant, and subsequently filed suit, claiming:
- Claiming that the defendant implied in the letter that any dispute of the debt must be made in writing and could not be disputed orally because the defendant listed its phone number in three separate places in the collection letter
- Claiming the defendant failed to identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed because it referenced the “guarantor” in a summary of the debt at the top of the letter, even though the letter starts, “[y]our student loan has defaulted. College Assist has taken assignment of the debt from your loan holder. Premier Credit of North America, LLC (PCNA) is collecting this debt for College Assist.”
- Claiming the location and formatting of the collection letter “buried” the validation notice, even though it appears in the middle of the front page of the letter.
Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York made short work of the plaintiff’s arguments that a least sophisticated consumer would be confused by any of the plaintiff’s claims. For each of the allegations made by the plaintiff — that the defendant violated Sections 1692g(a)(2), 1692(g)(a)(3), 1692e, and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA — Judge Matsumoto ruled the plaintiff failed to state a claim.
