Decker v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

1

RACHAEL DECKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:20-CV-02229

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

November 2, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge

I. Introduction

Rachael Decker (“Plaintiff') brings this action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C §§ 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) alleging that Defendant United Collection Bureau, Inc. (“UCB”) employed deceptive means in attempting to collect on a debt. (Doc. 5 ¶ 35.) UCB has moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. 4.) Following the filing of Plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. 5), UCB filed a second motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 6.) For the reasons discussed below, UCB's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) will be granted.

II. Background

On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 5) against UCB seeking damages, costs, and attorney fees because of Defendant's alleged violation of the FDCPA. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that UCB's October 31,2019, debt collection letter sent to her violated § 1692e of the FDCPA. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that, because the Letter included both an “Account Balance” and “Minimum Payment Due,” along with a paragraph regarding the accrual of interest that could be viewed as suggesting either the entire “Account Balance” or “Minimum Payment Due” was the current debt, the Letter was confusing, and the “least sophisticated consumer” would be misled by the Letter in not understanding what amount of debt is presently due. (Doc. 5 ¶¶ 21-35.) At the top of the Letter, an “Account Balance” of $2,875.54 and a “Minimum Payment Due” of $579.00 are listed. (Doc. 5-1.) Below these amounts, the Letter states:

Dear RACHAEL A DECKER:

This communication is in regard to your SEARS CARD account.

Unless you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, please make your payment of at least the minimum payment due. Please make your payments to Citibank at the remit address below or call our office for arrangements.

As of the date of this letter, you owe the above stated Account Balance. Because of interest and/or other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after your payment is received. For further information, you may write to our office or call the telephone number within this communication.

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the last paragraph in the above statement explaining the possibility that interest is accruing was confusing as to what amount that interest was accruing on and whether the “Account Balance” or “Minimum Payment Due" was the amount of the debt. (Id.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant UCB's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 6.)

III. Legal Standard

A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,127 S.Ct. 1955,167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The plaintiff must assert “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,129 S.Ct. 1937,1949,173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

“Though a complaint ‘does not need detailed factual allegations,... a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Prop. Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114,118 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A court “take[s] as true all the factual allegations in the Complaint and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts, but... disregard[s] legal conclusions and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223, 231 n.14 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Twombly and Iqbal require [a district court] to take the following three steps to determine the sufficiency of a complaint: First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.

Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show[n]-that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). This “plausibility” determination will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court generally relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. See Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court may also consider “undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are based on the [attached] documents.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192,1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, “documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered.” Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the Court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250,1261 (3d Cir. 1994).

IV. Analysis

Defendant moves to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing that the Letter clearly conveys the amount of the debt owed and is not confusing or deceptive. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff alleges that the Letter could be viewed as confusing and misleading as to the two distinct amounts indicated on the Letter when considering the paragraph regarding the accrual of interest. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not allege a plausible cause of action and agrees with Defendant's arguments in favor of dismissal.

The FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g), stipulates that "the amount of the debt” must be provided through written notice to the consumer:

(a) Notice of debt;

Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing-

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)(1).

Additionally, a debt collector cannot deceive, mislead, or make false representations in the practice of collecting debt:

§ 1692e. False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

...

(2) The false representation of--

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

...

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).

The determination as to whether “the amount of the debt” has been properly communicated to a debtor under the FDCPA is evaluated under the “least sophisticated consumer” standard. See Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2000). Whether language in a collection letter violates the “least sophisticated consumer” standard is a question of law. Id. at 353. In some circumstances, determining whether the least sophisticated debtor would plausibly be misled by such a communication may be resolved in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Smith v. Lyons, Doughty & Velduius, P.C., 2008 WL 2885887, at *5 (D.N.J. July 23, 2008).

The relevant question is whether the “least sophisticated consumer" would be confused or misled by the debt collector's letter. Id. The least sophisticated debtor standard is “lower than simply examining whether particular language would deceive or mislead a reasonable debtor.” Id. The least sophisticated debtor standard, although deferential to consumers, is not intended to allow for “liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices.” Id. Plaintiffs who rely on "unrealistic and fanciful interpretations of collection communications that would not occur to even a reasonable or sophisticated debtor frustrate Congress's intent to ‘insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged.'” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt. 550 F.3d 294,299 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting 15 U.S.C....