Jones v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc.
1:16-cv-01250
E.D.N.YJul 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Josanne Jones received a PCB debt-collection letter for unpaid medical services dated December 30, 2015; letter said the account was "seriously past due," urged resolution "immediately," and stated "payment is expected within 10 days of this notice."
- Letter warned that if the account was not resolved, PCB "will assume that you have no intention of settling this outstanding debt," and closed with "We are here to help you, as our client was there to help you in your time of need."
- Jones sued PCB on behalf of herself and similarly situated persons under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f.
- PCB moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); the parties did not dispute that Jones is a consumer and PCB is a debt collector.
- The court applied the "least sophisticated consumer" standard and required factual plausibility under Ashcroft v. Iqbal to survive the 12(c) motion.
- The court concluded Jones' complaint consisted largely of the letter's text plus conclusory assertions and granted PCB's motion, dismissing all FDCPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter violated §1692d (harassment, oppression, abuse) | The statement that PCB would "assume" no intention to pay is belittling and intended to harass/oppress | The letter is a routine demand for payment and not oppressive or abusive | Dismissed — conclusory allegations insufficient to show conduct that has the natural consequence of harassment/abuse |
| Whether the letter violated §1692e (false, deceptive, or misleading representations) | Phrases like "immediately" and "within 10 days" are ambiguous about when the deadline runs; language implies disgraceful conduct | The letter is not deceptive or misleading; a reasonable (even least sophisticated) consumer can make logical inferences from the text | Dismissed — no cognizable deception or falsehood pled; conclusory claims fail under Rule 12(c) |
| Whether the letter violated §1692e(7) (false implication of disgrace/crime) | Language implies debtor is ungrateful, shameful, and deliberately dishonest, disparaging character | The statements do not imply disgraceful conduct or criminality; they are ordinary collection language | Dismissed — complaint lacks factual support showing implication of disgrace |
| Whether the letter violated §1692f (unfair or unconscionable means) | The letter was intended to intimidate, humiliate, and coerce payment; thus unfair/unconscionable | The letter is a commonplace collection notice and not akin to the types of conduct §1692f targets | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege unfair or unconscionable conduct comparable to established §1692f violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(c) motions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir.) (least sophisticated consumer standard)
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir.) (definition and limits of least sophisticated consumer)
- Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 961 F. Supp. 2d 522 (S.D.N.Y.) (examples of unfair or unconscionable §1692f practices)
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 133 (E.D.N.Y.) (district court discussion on FDCPA harm and consumer perspective)
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.) (cited regarding discussion of Jacobson)