454 F.Supp.3d 122
D. Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiff Vanessa Marti received a debt-collection letter (Exhibit A) dated October 3, 2017 from Schreiber/Cohen, a law firm that stated it "represents Midland Funding, LLC."
- Exhibit A listed Midland as "Our Client" and included the original creditor name and account number but did not expressly state Midland was the current owner of the debt or that the firm was collecting on Midland's behalf.
- Marti sued Schreiber/Cohen and its compliance attorney, alleging violations of the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a)(2), 1692e, 1692e(10)) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A). A class was certified for FDCPA and MCPA claims based on similar letters.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the letter sufficiently identified Midland as the current creditor and was not false or misleading.
- The court assessed the letter under the ‘‘least sophisticated/unsophisticated consumer’’ standard and concluded the letter, when read in full, made clear Schreiber/Cohen represented Midland and identified Midland as the creditor.
- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the FDCPA and MCPA claims; alternatively, it held Marti presented no compensable injury under Chapter 93A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial letter violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) by failing to identify the creditor | The letter did not explicitly name the current creditor, creating confusion about who owned the debt | The letter states Schreiber/Cohen "represents Midland Funding, LLC" and labels Midland as "Our Client," which an unsophisticated consumer would understand as the current creditor | Court held Exhibit A sufficiently identified Midland as the current creditor; no § 1692g(a)(2) violation |
| Whether the letter was false, deceptive, or misleading in violation of §§ 1692e and 1692e(10) | Ambiguity about creditor identity made the letter deceptive or misleading | Context and express statements about representation and client relationship dispel any misleading inference | Court held no § 1692e or § 1692e(10) violation because the relationship and creditor identity were clear from the letter as a whole |
| Whether Marti stated a Chapter 93A claim (deceptive act plus compensable injury) | The allegedly deceptive letter qualifies as an unfair or deceptive practice and caused confusion | The letter did not fail to identify the creditor; and, even if it had, Marti offered no evidence of an injury or loss caused by the letter | Court held Chapter 93A claim fails: no deceptive act (for same reasons as FDCPA), and in any event Marti offered no cognizable injury or causation under 93A |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Gov’t Dev. Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746 (1st Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standard and materiality of facts)
- Pollard v. Law Office of Mandy L. Spaulding, 766 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2014) (FDCPA communications judged from perspective of the unsophisticated consumer)
- Taylor v. Perrin, Landy, deLaunay & Durand, 103 F.3d 1232 (5th Cir. 1997) (unsophisticated-consumer standard protects inexperienced and credulous consumers)
- Scanlon v. Dep’t of Army, 277 F.3d 598 (1st Cir. 2002) (summary judgment inference-drawing rule in favor of nonmoving party)
- O’Connor v. Nantucket Bank, 992 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Mass. 2014) (elements of an FDCPA claim)
- Som v. Daniels Law Offices, P.C., 573 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2008) (elements of an FDCPA claim)
- Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2016) (letter labeling a creditor as an assignee and referencing a transfer can create § 1692g(a)(2) problems)
- Gross v. Lyons Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C., 779 F. App’x 864 (3d Cir. 2019) (references to multiple entities can overshadow and obscure the creditor’s identity)
- Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (need for a cognizable injury under Chapter 93A)
- Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492 (Mass. 2013) (Chapter 93A damages require a distinct injury arising from the unfair or deceptive act)
- Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 471 (D. Mass. 2015) (statutory damages do not substitute for proof of injury and causation under Chapter 93A)