LEVINS v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC
1:17-cv-00928
D.N.J.Sep 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Elaine and William Levins sued HRRG (doing business as ARS Account Resolution Services) under the FDCPA alleging harassing, deceptive debt-collection calls about an allegedly defaulted medical debt.
- HRRG left a prerecorded voicemail: “ARS calling. Please return our call at 1-800-694-3048. ARS is a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. ... Visit us at www.arspayment.com.”
- Plaintiffs alleged the message failed to provide “meaningful disclosure” of the caller’s identity, deceptively abbreviated the company name to “ARS,” and improperly shifted the burden to consumers to investigate by providing only a phone number/website.
- HRRG is a Florida LLC and had registered “ARS Account Resolution Services” as an alternate trade name in New Jersey.
- The district court considered a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; the parties did not dispute that Plaintiffs are consumers, HRRG is a debt collector, and the calls sought to collect a debt.
- The court granted HRRG’s motion, concluding the voicemail complied with the FDCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voicemail failed to provide "meaningful disclosure" under §1692(d)(6) | Levins: message too vague; "ARS" is ambiguous in NJ and forces a return call to learn identity/purpose | HRRG: message plainly states debt-collection purpose and identifies ARS; included number/website for verification | Held: message provided meaningful disclosure; no violation |
| Whether use of "ARS" (abbreviation) violates §1692(e)(14) prohibition on using a name other than true name | Levins: abbreviating trade name is deceptive; "ARS" is not the defendant’s true corporate name | HRRG: "ARS Account Resolution Services" is a registered alternate trade name in NJ; initials are permissible | Held: use of "ARS" is a registered alternate/true name and acceptable |
| Whether including phone number/website improperly coerces consumer to investigate, making communication deceptive | Levins: providing contact info shifts burden to consumer to confirm identity/purpose | HRRG: number/website clarify identity and purpose and further prevent confusion | Held: contact info enhances, not undermines, disclosure; not deceptive |
| Whether voicemail contained false representations or deceptive means in violation of §1692(e)(10) | Levins: message misleading as to identity/purpose | HRRG: message explicitly states purpose and use of information; no misrepresentation | Held: no false or deceptive representations; statute not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (pleading standards)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility framework)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading plausibility framework)
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir.) (three-part Iqbal/Twombly analysis)
- Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., 380 F.3d 316 (8th Cir.) (initials may constitute a corporate name)
- Gryzbowski v. I.C. Sys., 691 F. Supp. 2d 618 (M.D. Pa.) (failure to identify as a debt collector in messages can violate FDCPA)
- Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal.) (same)
- Masciarelli v. Boudreau & Assocs., 529 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D. Mass.) (same)
- Foti v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 643 (S.D.N.Y.) (same)