Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5613
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bourff defaulted on a $195,000 loan from AWL in April 2009, secured by a deed to Fulton County property.
- AWL assigned the loan and security deed to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP for collection.
- BAC hired Rubin Lublin, LLC to assist in collecting the debt.
- In May 2009 Rubin Lublin sent a notice stating it was an FDCPA collection effort and identified BAC as the creditor.
- Bourff sued under the FDCPA, alleging the notice falsely labeled BAC as creditor, which is excluded from the FDCPA's creditor definition.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, holding BAC was a creditor and any error was harmless; the dismissal was vacated on appeal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA false representation | Bourff contends the notice falsely identified BAC as creditor, violating §1692e. | Rubin Lublin argues BAC could act as creditor or was not incorrectly identified. | The claim states a plausible FDCPA violation; remand to district court is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Belanger v. Salvation Army, 556 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation and pleading standards in 11th Circuit)
- Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal and statutory interpretation)