McGinty v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc.
2:15-cv-04356
E.D.N.YOct 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs McGinty and Paskiewicz are New York consumers whose medical debts were assigned to Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. (PCB) for collection.
- PCB sent nearly identical collection letters listing a medical provider and patient name in the letter caption and stating the account "has been referred to our offices for collection."
- Each letter included the FDCPA validation notice (rights to dispute within 30 days) but also contained prominent payment-oriented language (e.g., "Pay Online," "please do not choose to ignore this outstanding debt").
- Plaintiffs sued under the FDCPA alleging: (1) the letters failed to identify the current creditor (§1692g(a)(2)); (2) the letters overshadowed or contradicted the validation notice (§1692g); and (3) related §1692e claims for false, deceptive, or misleading representations.
- PCB moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The court accepted the complaint's factual allegations as true for that motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letters identify the creditor (§1692g(a)(2)) | The captioned medical provider name does not explicitly or implicitly identify the entity as the current creditor | The letters "clearly identify" the medical providers by name in the caption; no ambiguity | Held for Plaintiffs: letters fail to identify the current creditor; motion denied on these claims |
| Whether payment language overshadows or contradicts the validation notice (§1692g) | Payment-oriented phrases and small font/spacing downplay validation rights and demand payment during the validation period | Letters include the required validation notice on the face and do not demand payment within 30 days or threaten adverse consequences | Held for Defendant: no overshadowing; motion granted as to this claim |
| Whether failure to identify creditor also violates §1692e (false, deceptive, misleading) | Failure to identify creditor — as alleged under §1692g — is a deceptive practice under §1692e | Materiality argued but PCB contends no actionable misrepresentation | Held for Plaintiffs: §1692e claim survives; motion denied as to these §1692e claims |
| Standard for Rule 12(c) review | N/A (procedural posture) | N/A | Court applied Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal-Twombly plausibility standard and viewed pleadings in plaintiffs' favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; Twombly/Iqbal standard governs Rule 12(c))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (FDCPA purpose and validation notice principles)
- Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (validation notice is invalid if it is overshadowed or contradictory)
- McStay v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2002) (collection letters must be read as a whole for least sophisticated consumer standard)
- Dewees v. Legal Servicing, LLC, 506 F. Supp. 2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (applying least sophisticated consumer standard to validation notice issues)
- Lerner v. Forster & Garbus, 240 F. Supp. 2d 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (demand for payment may contradict validation notice if it fails to explain nonwaiver of validation rights)
- Weiss v. Zwicker & Assocs., P.C., 664 F. Supp. 2d 214 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (assessing clarity and effectiveness of validation notice)
- Lee v. Forster & Garbus LLP, 926 F. Supp. 2d 482 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (naming a party without clarifying creditor role can violate §1692g and §1692e)