Gardner v. Credit Management LP
140 F. Supp. 3d 317
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- CMI mailed Gardner a debt-collection notice in an envelope with a glassine window showing her name, address, and a 50-character alphanumeric string; nine digits of that string were CMI’s internal tracking/account number.
- The envelope displayed no company name or any wording indicating debt collection, but it did include a return address.
- Gardner sued under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8), alleging the visible account/tracking number violated the statute’s ban on “any language or symbol, other than the debt collector’s address, on any envelope.”
- CMI moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); the court applied the Rule 12(b)(6)/Twombly plausibility standard.
- The court considered statutory text, legislative history, FTC guidance, and persuasive precedent about a “benign language” exception to § 1692f(8).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether displaying an internal tracking/account number visible through a glassine window violates § 1692f(8) | Gardner: the visible tracking/account number is “language or symbol” other than the debt collector’s address and therefore per se prohibited | CMI: the alphanumeric string is benign/harmless and does not reveal debtor status; § 1692f(8) should be read to allow harmless markings | The court held the benign-language exception applies; the tracking string did not disclose debtor status and did not violate § 1692f(8). |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (articulates the least-sophisticated-consumer standard)
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (applies least-sophisticated-consumer standard)
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (use of least-sophisticated-consumer benchmark in FDCPA cases)
- Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316 (8th Cir. 2004) (rejects literal reading of § 1692f(8) as absurd)
- Goswami v. Am. Collections Enterprise, Inc., 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2004) (collects cases rejecting literal interpretation of § 1692f(8))
- Schweizer v. Trans Union Corp., 136 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1998) (observes that innocuous words on an envelope do not violate § 1692f(8))
- Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2014) (held that an account number plus a QR code could reveal debtor status; disagreed with here)
- United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2000) (statutory interpretation should avoid absurd results)
- Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizes avoiding absurd statutory outcomes)
- Sampson v. MRS BPO, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (analogous reasoning that a string of numbers on an envelope is indecipherable and not indicative of debt)