Janet McMurray v. ProCollect, Incorporated
687 F.3d 665
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- McMurray sues ProCollect for FDCPA violations over a debt-collection letter seeking $716.41.
- Letter contains initial non-bold text with credit-reporting threats and examples of credit consequences.
- Bottom of letter includes bold notice about dispute rights under FDCPA §1692g(a).
- January 2010 suit in the Northern District of Texas; McMurray claims the main text contradicts/overshadows §1692g(a).
- District court granted ProCollect summary judgment on the FDCPA claim; McMurray appealed challenging only that ruling.
- Court reviews de novo whether the letter complies with §1692g and whether it overshadows/contradicts the statutory notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether letter overshadows §1692g(a) notice | McMurray argues the main text overshadows the notice at bottom. | ProCollect contends no overshadowing because no inconsistent timing or emphasis | No overshadowing; letter not inconsistent with §1692g(a). |
| Whether letter contradicts §1692g(a) notice | McMurray asserts contradiction between payment prompts and the 30-day dispute window. | ProCollect maintains no contradiction since no payment demand within 30 days and the notice remains clear. | Not contradictory; consistent with §1692g(a). |
| Whether the language 'timely validate' creates inconsistency | McMurray argues 'timely validate' implies payment or rushed action conflicting with 30-day window. | ProCollect treats 'timely validation' as about disputing validity, not paying the debt. | Not inconsistent with the notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peter v. GC Servs. L.P., 310 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2002) (no contradiction where no payment demand within 30 days)
- Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 2005) (warnings of consequences may not overshadow the notice)
- Goswami v. Am. Collections Enter., Inc., 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2004) (unsophisticated-consumer standard governs deception analysis)
- DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to provide required §1692g(a) information is a violation)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of Tex., Inc. v. Abbott, 647 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and unsophisticated-consumer framework)