A District Court judge in New Jersey has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the plaintiff claimed the amount cited as being owed in a collection letter was inaccurate and that the plaintiff did not owe the debt to the current owner cited in the letter, which purchased the debt from the original creditor.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Saldana v. Resurgent Capital Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant. The letter said, in part, “Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. manages the above referenced account for LVNV Funding, LLC and has initiated a review of the inquiry we recently received,” while also including a reference block at the top of the letter that stated, “Original Creditor: Comenity Capital Bank Current Owner: LVNV Funding LLC Balance: $518.95.” The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated Sections 1692g and 1692e of the FDCPA because the amount being collected was incorrect and that the amount was not owed to LVNV Funding.
But on all counts, Judge Brian Martinotti of the District Court for the District of New Jersey agreed with the defendant’s explanations of why the contents of the letter did not violate the FDCPA, even looking at it from the perspective of a least sophisticated consumer. “Read in its entirety, the Letter unambiguously identifies the current creditor by name and provides Plaintiff with his account number and the amount of the debt allegedly owed,” Judge Martinotti wrote. “This is more than sufficient to satisfy § 1692g(a)(1)-(2).”
As well, just because the plaintiff does not know who LVNV Funding is does not render the letter as false or misleading, Judge Martinotti said. “Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the Letter failed to effectively communicate or mislead him to the identity of the current creditor,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, the only factual basis for Plaintiff’s challenged claim is the Letter did not explain how LVNV received the account and whether it purchased or had been assigned the debt from Comenity. The Complaint, however, does not cite any language in the Letter or otherwise provide any factual basis for its allegations Defendant misled Plaintiff as to the identity of the current creditor.”