Dymond v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc.
2:19-cv-02559
E.D.N.YSep 28, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Heather Dymond received a debt-collection letter from Commonwealth on May 3, 2018; it was the first communication about the debt.
- The letter contained a bold, all-caps header: "SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO" with a Pennsylvania address; a separate P.O. Box address also appeared at the top.
- A statutory validation notice (the §1692g disclosure) appeared mid-letter and tracked §1692g(a)’s text about the 30-day dispute period.
- Commonwealth’s telephone number appeared twice: once at the top with business hours and once under the sender’s signature with a direct extension.
- Dymond alleged the header overshadowed/misleadingly limited her rights (implying disputes had to be in writing), violating FDCPA §§1692g and 1692e; Commonwealth moved to dismiss arguing the validation notice complied with §1692g and was not overshadowed.
- The Court granted the motion, finding the header did not render the validation notice unclear or misleading to the least sophisticated consumer and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the header "SEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO" overshadowed the §1692g validation notice or was otherwise misleading under §§1692g/1692e | Dymond: header overshadowed the validation notice and implied disputes must be made in writing; phone number displayed insufficiently/emphasized only once | Commonwealth: validation notice complied with §1692g; phone number appears twice (top with hours and bottom with extension); header is separate and not confusing | Court: header did not overshadow or mislead the least sophisticated consumer; letter did not violate §§1692g or 1692e; case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (a valid disclosure can still violate the FDCPA if other language confuses or clouds the required message)
- Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (validation notice is overshadowing if it fails to convey information clearly to the least sophisticated consumer)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (adopts the least sophisticated consumer standard for FDCPA interpretation)
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (the least sophisticated consumer is presumed to read collection notices with some care and possess rudimentary world knowledge)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring allegations sufficient to make claims plausible)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (court must accept factual allegations as true and draw inferences in plaintiff’s favor on a 12(b)(6) motion)
- Quinteros v. MBI Assocs., 999 F. Supp. 2d 434 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (even the least sophisticated consumer cannot be credited with bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations)