Kohli v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLC, 1:14-cv-01665

Kohli alleged Javitch, a debt collector, obtained a judgment and began garnishing his wages.
Through counsel, Kohli allegedly entered a "new agreement" to pay $600 monthly on five student loan accounts, with the first payment due June 15, 2014.
Despite knowledge of the June 15 start date, Javitch garnished Kohli's wages on June 10, 2014.
Kohli sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692f(1).
Javitch moved to dismiss, arguing Kohli’s FDCPA claim depended on an implausible breach-of-contract theory and that Kohli did not allege he actually made the June 15 payment.
The Court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard and considered whether Javitch’s conduct could mislead the least sophisticated consumer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Javitch’s pre–June 15 garnishment violated the FDCPA by being false, deceptive, or misleading	Kohli: Javitch agreed to accept payments beginning June 15, so garnishing June 10 contradicted that agreement and could mislead consumers	Javitch: Kohli’s FDCPA claim rests on an alleged breach of contract; he did not allege Javitch promised to forbear or that he made the June 15 payment, so the claim is implausible	Court: Denied dismissal; viewed facts as true, the conduct could reasonably mislead the least sophisticated consumer under §1692e
Whether plaintiff failed to adequately plead claims under §§1692d, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692f(1)	Kohli: Alleged harassment/oppressive collection, false/misleading representation regarding payment arrangement, and improper collection of amounts not authorized	Javitch: Plaintiff waived response; claims insufficiently pled and dependent on breach theory	Court: Rejected waiver/forfeiture argument and found Javitch’s motion insufficiently specific to dismiss those claims

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for plausible complaint)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169 (use least-sophisticated-consumer standard for FDCPA §1692e)
Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561 F.3d 588 (clarifying least-sophisticated-consumer test)
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (reply briefs cannot raise new arguments the court must consider)