Cynthia A. Siwulec v. Jm Adjustment Services LLC, 465 F. App'x 200

Siwulec filed a FDCPA claim against JMAS after a May 2010 in-person debt-collection visit and lawn-discarded documents.
District Court dismissed the amended complaint as not showing JMAS as a debt collector.
Allegations include no FDCPA disclosures, on-site information gathering, and JMAS’s website claiming FDCPA/GLBA compliance.
District Court held JMAS was a messenger for Chase and not a debt collector.
Court of Appeals reverses, determining JMAS’s principal purpose is debt collection and it regularly engages in indirect collection.
Remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether JMAS qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA	JMAS’s principal purpose is debt collection; conducts on-site data gathering and calls to debtors	JMAS is mere messenger for Chase; not independently collecting debts	Yes; JMAS is a debt collector; district court erred

Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (plaintiff-friendly standard for 12(b)(6) reviews; defer to factual pleadings)
Santiago v. GMAC Mortg. Grp., Inc., 417 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2005) (bankruptcy of pleading; accept well-pled facts as true)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not mere possibility)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged approach to identify non-conclusory facts; plausibility)
Romine v. Diversified Collection Servs., Inc., 155 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1998) (relevance to 'deceptive' vs. 'messenger' status under FDCPA)