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 while warning the plaintiff’s attorney that should “similar cases of this nature” be filed in the future, they will “undoubtedly result in the imposition of sanctions.”
A copy of the ruling in the case of Leifer v. United Collection Bureau can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter offered three options to settle an unpaid debt. The first option was to make a one-time payment of 50% of the balance owed, which needed to be received by August 21, 2018. The second and third options offered payment plans, the first payment of which was due by August 21, 2018. At the bottom of the letter was an instruction to “please return this portion with payment,” which included a P.O. Box listed under the words, “remit to.”
The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by making false representations or using deceptive means to collect on a debt because it failed to inform the plaintiff whether any of the payments had to be sent by the plaintiff by the date in the letter or whether the payment needed to be received by that date, and because the letter allegedly failed to state to which address the payment must be mailed.
In this case, the letter “sufficiently communicates” that the funds must be received by August 21. Even if the plaintiff mis-interpreted the instructions, which led to the payment being sent a few days early, it would not rise to the level of an FDCPA violation, stated Judge Frederic Block of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Judge Block also made short work of the plaintiff’s claim regarding the address to which the payment must be sent. “Even the least sophisticated consumer would have no trouble determining that they should send or ‘remit payment’ to the PO Box address as clearly instructed in the letter,” he wrote. “No consumer would believe they should send payment to themselves, even though the consumer’s own address is listed on the letter. Nor is the defendant’s corporate address at the top of the letter confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.”
Borrowing from Judge Brian Cogan, Judge Block referred to this as a “lawyer’s case,” because “the plaintiff seeks to use the FDCPA not as a shield against abusive tactics but as a sword against a debt collector who has conveyed a commonsense letter to an individual with an outstanding debt.”
Moving on to the defendant’s motion for sanctions, Judge Block shared concerns from Judge Raymond Dearie who ruled on a similar case involving the same attorneys representing the plaintiff and the defendant, but stopped short of approving the defendant’s motion. “Although sanctions will not be imposed at this time, plaintiff’s counsel is on notice that similar cases of this nature will undoubtedly result in the imposition of sanctions,” Judge Block wrote.
