BENCOSME v. STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC
3:18-cv-03304
D.N.J.Apr 23, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Estibaly Bencosme, a New Jersey resident, sued Stillman Law Office, LLC under the FDCPA claiming a debt-collection letter was misleading and unfair.
- Stillman is a Massachusetts law firm with no attorneys licensed in New Jersey; no Stillman attorney reviewed the letter before mailing.
- The one-page collection letter stated Stillman was hired to collect the debt, included the debt amount, and contained a discrete paragraph disclaiming that no attorney had personally reviewed the account and that the firm was not retained to file suit.
- Plaintiff submitted a unilateral Statement of Additional Undisputed Facts (PSAUF); Defendant moved to strike but the court declined to strike and considered the PSAUF.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; after oral argument the court granted summary judgment for Stillman and denied class certification as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Stillman Letter violated the FDCPA as deceptive/misleading because of attorney-involvement language | The letter, read in context, misleads the least sophisticated consumer into believing imminent suit is likely despite the disclaimer | The letter is a one-page collection letter with a clear, prominent disclaimer that no attorney has reviewed the account and that the firm is not retained to sue; thus not deceptive | Court: Letter complies with precedent (Greco/Lesher line); no FDCPA violation — summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether the totality of circumstances (prior contact by I.C. Systems) creates an implied imminent threat of suit | Plaintiff argues a “one-two punch” with prior notifications could lead an unsophisticated consumer to fear imminent litigation despite the disclaimer | Defendant: letter contains no threats and the consumer is presumed to read the letter in full; circumstantial theory unsupported by facts | Court: Rejected plaintiff’s totality argument; no imminent-threat inference warranted |
| Whether sending the letter from an out-of-state firm lacking NJ‑licensed attorneys violates the FDCPA or creates a private cause of action based on NJ RPC | Plaintiff contends out-of-state firm lacked authority and letter violates NJ professional conduct rules, making the communication improper | Defendant: Letter contains no threat and professional-rule violations do not create an independent private right under the FDCPA | Court: Rejected theory; NJ RPC violations do not give rise to independent FDCPA claims |
| Motion to strike plaintiff’s unilateral PSAUF | Plaintiff offered additional facts via PSAUF to support claims | Defendant moved to strike PSAUF as contrary to magistrate’s order | Court: Denied motion to strike; considered the PSAUF but that fact mix did not create triable FDCPA issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, LLP, 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005) (attorney-involvement disclaimer permissible where it communicates attorneys have not personally reviewed the account)
- Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 650 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2011) (disclaimer ineffective when contradicted elsewhere in a multi-page letter; single-page, noncontradictory disclaimers acceptable)
- Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2006) (FDCPA construed broadly and applied under least‑sophisticated‑consumer standard)
- Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2013) (same statutory interpretation principles for FDCPA cases)
- Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, 916 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2019) (elements required to state an FDCPA claim)
- Campuzano‑Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 550 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2008) (unsophisticated debtor is presumed to read collection notice in entirety)