Laura Edstrom-Smith v. Kass Shuler, P.A.
680 F. App'x 813
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kass Shuler, P.A., on behalf of Suncoast Credit Union, filed a Florida state-court complaint to collect a loan balance from Laura Edstrom-Smith.
- The state complaint included a "Notice Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" explaining dispute rights and that the plaintiff would assume the debt valid unless disputed within 30 days and would provide verification/original creditor information upon dispute.
- Edstrom-Smith filed a federal suit alleging the notice was false or misleading in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (particularly § 1692e(10)).
- She claimed the notice was "superfluous," confusing, and could lead consumers to believe that disputing the debt alone would halt collection or obviate responding to the state-court complaint, possibly resulting in default judgments.
- The district court dismissed her complaint with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed that dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FDCPA § 1692e is violated by including the notice in the state-court complaint | Notice is misleading to the least sophisticated consumer; it suggests disputing the debt stops collection and removes need to answer the lawsuit | The notice merely describes what the collector will do if the consumer disputes; it does not mislead or make false representations about litigation obligations | The notice did not tend to mislead the least sophisticated consumer; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the notice violated § 1692g or other FDCPA provisions by its inclusion in the complaint | Inclusion of the notice is effectively a § 1692g violation and confusing under the Act | No provision prohibits including such a notice in a pleading; the complaint pleaded only a § 1692e theory and not § 1692g | Court declined this new theory on appeal and noted nothing in the Act barred including the notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. McKay, 351 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (pleading construed in plaintiff's favor at motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility standard for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals)
- Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir.) (FDCPA liability measured by whether communication tends to mislead the least sophisticated consumer)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir.) (definition of the least sophisticated consumer standard)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (appellate court will not consider new theories raised for first time on appeal)