952 F.3d 749
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Anita Cagayat received two debt-collection letters in windowed (glassine) envelopes; she alleges the inward page shows the words Collection Bureau bleeding through and readable to the naked eye.
- Cagayat contends a third party (her daughter) saw the envelopes and recognized them as from a debt collector; she attached copies of the letters to her complaint.
- She sued United Collection Bureau (UCB) under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §1692f(8)) and Ohio CSPA, alleging the visible wording on the mailings violated the prohibition on language or symbols on envelopes indicating debt collection.
- UCB moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding the attached copies contradicted the complaint and that the words were not clearly legible (upside-down/backwards), applying the least sophisticated consumer standard.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed: it held language visible through a glassine window can fall within §1692f(8), the exhibits did not utterly discredit Cagayat’s allegations, and the least sophisticated consumer standard did not excuse the visibility issue; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether language visible through a glassine/windowed envelope is covered by 15 U.S.C. §1692f(8) | Window-visible markings that reveal collection purpose violate §1692f(8) just like markings printed on an envelope | §1692f(8) forbids language on an envelope; internal text not literally on the envelope should be excluded | Window-visible language can be treated as on the envelope and fall within §1692f(8) (adopting reasoning in Douglass) |
| Whether attached copies of the letters utterly contradicted plaintiff’s allegation that Collection Bureau was clearly visible | Copies need not show exact appearance in normal lighting; they do not disprove the allegation | The exhibits demonstrate the words are barely legible and contradict the complaint | The exhibits do not utterly discredit the allegations; dismissal was improper at 12(b)(6) stage |
| Proper application of the least sophisticated consumer standard where words appeared upside-down/backwards in the copies | Even if upside-down/backwards in one orientation, a mail handler could easily rotate the envelope and read Collection Bureau; embarrassment/invasion of privacy remains a risk | Upside-down/backwards text requires unusual effort and thus is not clearly visible to the least sophisticated consumer | The upside-down/backwards orientation does not defeat liability under the least sophisticated consumer standard; rotation or handling would reveal the wording |
| Disposition of related state CSPA claim after FDCPA ruling | CSPA claim tied to FDCPA analysis and should be remanded if FDCPA dismissal is reversed | CSPA dismissal was proper because FDCPA failed | CSPA claim remanded for further proceedings consistent with the FDCPA holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (held §1692f(8) covers markings visible through a transparent envelope window)
- Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2008) (FDCPA is broadly remedial and construed accordingly)
- Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 770 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2014) (confirming broad construction of the FDCPA)
- DeCraene v. Weber & Olcese, P.L.C., 300 F. Supp. 3d 978 (W.D. Mich. 2018) (privacy/embarrassment concerns implicated by visible collection markings)
- Goswami v. American Collections Enterprise, 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2004) (discussing proscription of conspicuous collection-related names/markings)
- Robbins v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 854 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)