Jones v. Midland Funding, LLC
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133082
| D. Conn. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff Kenneth Jones sues Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. alleging FDCPA, CCPA, and CUTPA violations.
- Letter at issue was sent June 24, 2007 under FDCPA validation procedures; stated current balance $2,096.06 with no itemization or interest disclosure.
- Discount offer purportedly reduced amount due to pay by August 8, 2007; amount due listed as $1,885.55 with no guidance on interim interest.
- Plaintiff received two later letters showing increasing balances and disclosed interest rates, but only the June 24 letter is at issue here.
- Plaintiff contends the June 24 letter failed to clearly communicate the debt amount as it did not disclose accruing interest.
- The court resolves cross-motions for summary judgment on FDCPA liability, and grants defendants’ summary judgment on state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the June 24, 2007 letter violate FDCPA §1692g(a)(1)? | Jones argues the notice fails to clearly state accruing interest and future amount. | Midland/MCM contend the current balance is correct and sufficient. | Yes; liable on liability, as interest accrual disclosure was required. |
| Do CUTPA claims fail for lack of ascertainable loss? | Jones suffered credit-report harm and letter responses as losses. | Losses must be causally linked to the conduct; no ascertainable loss shown. | Granted for defendants; CUTPA claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Does CCPA permit a private right of action for claims accruing before July 1, 2007? | Plaintiff alleges violation of CCPA amendments. | Private action exists only for post-amendment accruals. | Granted for defendants; pre-amendment claim not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (objective least sophisticated consumer standard)
- DeSantis v. Computer Credit, Inc., 269 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (clear and effective communication standard for 1692g notices)
- Miller v. McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, L.L.C., 214 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2000) (safe harbor language for notices with interest and discounts)
- Dragon v. I.C. System, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Conn. 2007) (discussion of 1692g notice sufficiency and related provisions)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (interpretation of notice language under FDCPA)
- Weiss v. Zwicker & Assocs., P.C., 664 F. Supp. 2d 214 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (analysis of interest disclosures in validation notices)