Eun Joo Lee v. Forster & Garbus LLP
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28534
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiff Eun Joo Lee filed a putative FDCPA class action against NCOP XI, LLC and Forster & Garbus LLP.
- NCOP allegedly purchased the debt originally owed to Capital One and sought collection through a letter dated January 31, 2011.
- The Collection Letter displayed 'AMOUNT DUE: $2,812.15' and included 'NCOP XI, LLC A/P/O CAPITAL ONE' with reference/account numbers.
- Plaintiff alleged the Letter violated FDCPA §§ 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g by failing to identify the current creditor and being deceptive.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing creditor identification was proper, misstatement immaterial, letter was Fromster’s, and bankruptcy barred the claim.
- The court denied the motion, addressing whether the creditor was properly identified, NCOP’s liability, and the bankruptcy abandonment/standing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Collection Letter violate FDCPA by not identifying the creditor? | Lee argues the Letter misidentifies the creditor and confuses the debtor about who is owed money. | Forster/NCOP contend the creditor is identified and any misidentification is immaterial; letter complies with law. | Plaintiff plausibly alleged a misleading identification of creditor in the Letter. |
| Is NCOP liable for FDCPA violations as the debt owner and/or principal to Forster’s actions? | NCOP, as owner, is liable because it or its agent drafted/sent the Letter. | Defendant argues questions of agency are premature; intent and liability not established. | Plaintiff stated viable claims against NCOP; principal can be liable for agent’s FDCPA violations. |
| Does bankruptcy bar or judicial estoppel preclude the FDCPA claims? | Trustee had notice via Schedule listing NCOP FDCPA claim; abandonment of Forster claims not shown. | Unlisted Forster claim and failure to disclose bars litigation; estoppel may apply. | The court found the trustee had enough information to decide and effectively abandoned the claim, so plaintiff not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir.2008) (least sophisticated consumer standard governs FDCPA interpretation)
- DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.2001) (objective standard for consumer understanding of notices)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir.1996) (clarifies materiality and content requirements under FDCPA)
- Sparkman v. Zwicker & Assocs., P.C., 374 F.Supp.2d 293 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (misidentification of creditor can violate §1692g)
- In re Furlong, 660 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.2011) (trustee may evaluate and decide on pursuing claims in bankruptcy context)