Golubeva v. Gc Services Ltd. Partnership
767 F. Supp. 2d 369
E.D.N.Y2010Background
- Golubeva filed a class action under the FDCPA against GC Services for three debt-collection letters related to a Citibank account.
- Plaintiff alleged the letters violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692g by presenting false, deceptive, or misleading debt collection practices.
- Plaintiff amended pleadings, and GC Services moved to dismiss; the court granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint but denied the motion as moot.
- At a status conference, GC Services clarified Citibank owns the debt and is the account holder; GC Services is a third-party collector and the letters reflect the amount owed as of the letter date.
- The parties narrowed the dispute to the August 10, 2009 letter containing a 70% settlement offer and Miller-style safe harbor language; the first two letters were abandoned by Golubeva.
- The court ultimately granted GC Services’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing Golubeva’s sole remaining FDCPA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the August 10, 2009 letter violate FDCPA 1692e/1692e(10) on its face? | Golubeva argues safe harbor language creates ambiguity and misleads about the settlement offer. | GC Services contends the letter discloses the settlement amount and is not deceptive. | Letter does not violate; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols, and Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000) (safe harbor language in debt-collection settlements)
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (least sophisticated consumer standard for deception)
- Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005) (least sophisticated consumer presumption of care)