Cantave v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2:19-cv-05796

Plaintiffs Annemarie Cantave and Shiyah Teitelbaum sued The CBE Group, Inc., alleging FDCPA violations based on two initial debt-collection letters (Oct. 20, 2018 and Nov. 10, 2018) seeking small consumer debts.
Each letter included the statutory 30‑day validation notice but also displayed multiple addresses in different parts of the letter (a labeled “mailing address,” a payment-processing address, and unlabeled addresses marked “change service requested”).
Cantave’s letter listed three payment options (including a mail address); Teitelbaum’s letter listed only online payment but included a detachable slip with two addresses (one visible through a return-envelope window).
Plaintiffs alleged the multiple addresses would confuse the least sophisticated consumer about where to send written disputes or requests for the original creditor’s name/address, and that the addresses overshadowed the validation rights required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court construed the letters and applied the least‑sophisticated‑consumer standard.
Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in full, holding the labeled mailing address and its proximity to the validation language rendered the letters not misleading or overshadowing as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple addresses made the letters false/deceptive under § 1692e / § 1692e(10)	Multiple addresses would confuse the least sophisticated consumer about where to mail disputes or inquiries	The letters clearly label a mailing address directly below the validation notice; reasonable consumers would use that address for disputes	Court: No § 1692e violation — addresses not misleading as a matter of law
Whether multiple addresses overshadow or contradict the § 1692g validation notice	Multiple addresses undermine/overshadow the validation notice and rights to dispute or request verification/original creditor	The validation notice is plainly stated and not contradicted; multiple addresses do not negate or obscure the rights language	Court: No § 1692g(b) violation — rights not overshadowed

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard and reasonable inference requirement)
Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (deceptiveness standard: communications susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations)
Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (validation notice cannot be overshadowed or contradicted)
Carlin v. Davidson Fink, LLP, 852 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2017) (applies least‑sophisticated‑consumer standard to § 1692e claims)
Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (overshadowing doctrine for validation notices)
Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (definition of ‘‘least sophisticated consumer")