Bluming v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC
1:18-cv-03517
| E.D.N.Y | Oct 3, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Avrohom Bluming sued Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging a collection letter misrepresented his right to dispute a debt by requiring disputes be made in writing.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); plaintiff did not oppose the motion.
- The challenged letter tracked the §1692g validation-notice language nearly verbatim and included a telephone number for questions or disputes.
- Controlling law establishes the 30-day dispute right but does not require disputes be in writing.
- The court found the letter contained no overshadowing or contradictory language and was not reasonably susceptible to a misleading reading.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint failed to state an FDCPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter violated §1692g by requiring disputes in writing | Letter required written disputes | Letter mirrors §1692g and provides phone option | Dismissed — no misleading requirement shown |
| Whether verbatim statutory language can be misleading | Verbatim text can still confuse consumers | Verbatim tracking is not confusing absent contradiction | Verbatim tracking not misleading here; no overshadowing |
Key Cases Cited
- Weixel v. Board of Educ., 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (pleading standards; assume facts as true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim)
- Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1993) (court may consider documents attached to complaint)
- Hooks v. Forman, Holt, Eliades & Ravin, LLC, 717 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2013) (§1692g does not require disputes to be written)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (notices that include the statute’s verbatim language are generally not confusing)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (definition of "overshadowing" or "contradictory" for consumer notices)
- Kagan v. Selene Fin. L.P., 210 F. Supp. 3d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (district court – tracking §1692g not misleading)