829 F. Supp. 2d 246
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Bodur sues Palisades Collection, LLC and Pressler & Pressler, LLP claiming FDCPA and NY GBL § 349 violations for attempting to collect a debt Bodur did not owe.
- Palisades obtained a 2006 judgment in Kings County against “Ibraham Bodur” (Brooklyn address) for an AT&T Wireless debt.
- Pressler sent a 2008 collection letter to Bodur at Bodur’s White Plains address, acknowledging Bodur was not the debtor after a call.
- Pressler sent a 2011 collection letter to Bodur’s address threatening asset seizure, despite prior confirmation Bodur was not the debtor.
- Bodur contends Pressler violated FDCPA by collecting from a non-debtor and Palisades is vicariously liable for Pressler’s actions; the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- Court grants Bodur summary judgment against Pressler on liability, denies Bodur’s against Palisades, and denies Pressler’s cross-motion while granting Palisades’ cross-motion; damages to be determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA violation for collecting from non-debtor | Bodur argues Pressler’s letters attempted to collect a debt from him after knowing he wasn’t the debtor. | Pressler/Palisades contend the letters were directed at the true debtor and addressed Bodur as a non-debtor; no direct contact with Bodur. | Pressler violated the FDCPA; Bodur entitled to damages; Palisades not liable on vicarious theory. |
| Standing to sue under the FDCPA | Bodur asserts he is a “consumer” harmed by misrepresentations about a debt. | Defendants contend Bodur had no standing since the debt was not his and he was not the debtor. | Bodur has standing under FDCPA §1692k(a) to seek damages for the misrepresentation. |
| Vicarious liability of Palisades for Pressler’s FDCPA violation | Palisades is liable for Pressler’s actions as the principal hiring the agent. | No evidence Palisades controlled Pressler’s conduct or was involved in Bodur’s case; no vicarious liability. | Palisades not vicariously liable; summary judgment for Palisades on this issue. |
| Damages and scope under FDCPA and GBL §349 | Pressler’s conduct warrants actual and statutory damages, plus fees; GBL §349 applies. | Only liability issues addressed; damages to be determined; no additional damages beyond statutory limits without proper showing. | Damages to be determined; liability established against Pressler; Palisades dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (establishes least sophisticated consumer standard for FDCPA review)
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (FDCPA deception standard; least sophisticated consumer)
- Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002) (FDCPA purpose and misidentification protections)
- Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz LLP, 637 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2011) (FDCPA strict liability; liability without intent within standard)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (debt collection notices viewed through least sophisticated consumer lens)
- Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 591 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2010) (FDCPA standard and protection for consumers of debt collection practices)