Sanders v. Am. Coradius Int'l

1

TEANNA SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CORADIUS INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-2652 (JXN)(CLW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 29, 2022

OPINION

JULIEN XAVIER NEALS, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 4] filed by Defendant American Coradius International LLC (“ACI” or “Defendant”) to which Plaintiff Teanna Sanders (“Plaintiff”) filed opposition [ECF No. 7], to which ACI replied [ECF No. 10]. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) as this Court is the court embracing the state court where this action was originally filed. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons stated herein, ACI's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint against ACI in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, under docket no. UNN-DC-002871-22. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between April 7, 2021 and May 6, 2021, she received multiple telephone calls from ACI in an attempt to collect a debt. Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 1-2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that ACI called Plaintiff “at least two times” on April 7, 2021, April 14, 2021, April 16, 2021, and May 4 2021, and at inconvenient times on “Saturday and/or Sunday.” Id. ¶¶ 20-24.

Plaintiff also alleges that on or about April 8, 2021, she received a letter from ACI (“collection letter”). Id. ¶ 16. This letter is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Compl. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2 at 13. Plaintiff alleges that the letter indicates USAA Federal Savings Bank as the creditor and that ACI is willing to accept $1664.17 to resolve the account. Compl. ¶¶ 25-26. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff alleges that ACI violated Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by calling Plaintiff repeatedly and mailing the April 8, 2021 collection letter. Id. ¶¶ 36-40.

On May 5, 2022, ACI timely removed this action to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Shortly thereafter, ACI filed its motion to dismiss, contending that Plaintiff's allegations fail as a matter of law to state a claim under the FDCPA. Def.'s Br. at 1, ECF No. 4-1. The matter is now ripe for the Court to decide.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading is sufficient so long as it includes “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and provides the defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) (internal quotations omitted). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all the facts in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). Moreover, dismissal is inappropriate even where “it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will ultimately prevail on the merits.” Id.

While this standard places a considerable burden on the defendant seeking dismissal, the facts alleged must be “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. That is, the allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Accordingly, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it provides a sufficient factual basis such that it states a facially plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In order to determine whether a complaint is sufficient under these standards, the Third Circuit requires a three-part inquiry: (1) the court must first recite the elements that must be pled in order to state a claim; (2) the court must then determine which allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and therefore need not be given an assumption of truth; and (3) the court must assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations and ascertain whether they plausibly give rise to a right to relief. Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).

III. DISUCSSION

Plaintiff alleges that ACI violated Sections 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the FDCPA by calling Plaintiff repeatedly and mailing the April 8, 2021 collection letter. Compl. ¶¶ 36-40. The FDCPA is a consumer protection statute that “imposes open-ended prohibitions on, inter alia, false, deceptive or unfair” debt-collection practices. Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573, 587, 130 S.Ct. 1605, 176 L.Ed.2d 519 (2010). “To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a ‘debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.” Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299, 303 (3d Cir. 2014). The parties only dispute the fourth prong.

To determine whether a particular practice or action violates the FDCPA, courts routinely apply the “least sophisticated debtor” standard. Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450, 453 (3d Cir. 2006); Blair v. Fed. Pac. Credit Co., LLC, 563 F.Supp.3d 347, 354 (D.N.J. 2021). The least sophisticated debtor standard is objective, “meaning that the specific plaintiff need not prove that she was actually confused or misled, only that the objective least sophisticated debtor would be.” Id. The least sophisticated debtor standard “preserves a quotient of reasonableness and presumes a basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care.” Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 2018). The debtor, however unsophisticated, must nevertheless “read collection notices in their entirety.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 550 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 2008).

A. Claims under Section 1692e

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the collection letter was “false, deceptive and misleading as to who is the actual owner of the Debt[.]” Compl. ¶ 27. Section 1692e of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation” to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The section includes a non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct, including making false representations as to the character or “legal status of any debt,” § 1692e(2), threatening to “take any action that cannot legally be taken,” § 1692e(5), and using “deceptive means” to “attempt to collect any debt,” § 1692e(10).

ACI contends that the collection letter is not materially confusing and there can only be one interpretation as to who the creditor is and who is the debt collector. Def.'s Reply Br. at 6. ACI maintains that the collection letter “clearly identifies USAA Federal Savings Bank as the ‘Creditor' in 2 places and states ACI is writing plaintiff regarding her USAA Federal Savings Bank account.” Def.'s Br. at 8. ACI further contends that its collection letter identified ACI as the debt collector. Id.

In response, Plaintiff contends that the collection letter is deceptive because it is unclear as to who actually is the owner of the debt. Pl.'s Opp'n Br. at 7. According to Plaintiff, the collection letter indicates that the creditor is “USAA Federal Savings Bank,” but it also indicates that “American Coradius International LLC, is willing to accept $1664.17 to resolve the account.” Id. Plaintiff argues that this language suggests that ACI is the owner of the debt. Id. Plaintiff notes that “[t]he Collection Letter could have indicated that ACI, acting on behalf of USAA, was willing to accept $1,664.17, but it did not.” Id. at 9. As a result, Plaintiff contends that there are two possible readings of the collection letter and the least sophisticated consumer reading the letter would be confused about who is the owner of the debt. Id. at 8-9.

In support of her argument, Plaintiff points to the decision in Hopkins v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, 2021 WL 1291736 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2021). That decision concerned a collection letter sent to the plaintiff which mentioned the names of the debt collector, JCPenney, JCPenney Credit Services and Synchrony Bank. The court held that the plaintiff properly alleged a violation of § 1692e with respect to confusion as to who actually owned the debt. Id. at *6. In so doing, the court reasoned that by failing to explain the relationship between Synchrony and JCPenney, the letter left open the question of who owns the debt. Id. The court further reasoned that a reader could reasonably think that (a) Synchrony owns the debt (the text says payment goes to it), (b) JCPenney owns the debt (the subject line and pay slip suggest that it is the account holder), or (c) that they have some type of joint operation, the contours of which are unclear (the pay slip is addressed to both, with a slash between their names). Id. The factors giving the court reason to find the Hopkins letter misleading are not present here.

Unlike the Hopkins letter, ACI's collection letter is not confusing because it only mentions two parties and clearly identifies those parties. The collection letter identifies USAA Federal Savings Bank as the creditor and ACI as the debt collector. See Compl., Ex A, ECF No. 1-2 at 13. Plaintiff appears to...