Michael v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131851
N.D. Ohio2011Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Michael filed a First Amended Complaint alleging FDCPA and state-law claims against Javitch.
- Defendant Javitch moved for judgment on the pleadings on September 21, 2011; Plaintiff opposed and Defendant replied.
- Citibank placed the debt with Defendant around May 12–18, 2010; on May 18, 2010 Defendant sent a validation letter.
- Plaintiff had a preexisting $50/month repayment plan with CitiBank; Defendant allegedly did not know of this before sending the letter.
- Defendant filed suit in South Euclid Municipal Court; Plaintiff’s counsel appeared; case dismissed by voluntary dismissal on August 27, 2010.
- Court grants Defendant’s motion, dismisses Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice and terminates the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1692g validation notice sufficiency | Plaintiff contends notice was deficient | Defendant argues notice complied with §1692g(a) | Validation notice satisfied §1692g(a) |
| 1692e(2)(A) misstatement of debt amount | Plaintiff claims balance was $50, not $2,725 | Amount reflects total debt; no misrepresentation | Plaintiff failed to state a §1692e(2)(A) claim |
| 1692e(3) attorney representation | Letterhead misleads about attorney involvement; claims misrepresentation | Disclaimer shows no attorney involvement; compliant | No §1692e(3) violation; disclaimer adequate |
| 1692e(5) threats of legal action | Letter implies imminent action not actually intended | No unlawful threat; suit filed later; not actionable | No §1692e(5) violation; action taken consistent with notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir.1992) (validation notice may accompany initial communication)
- Gionis v. Javitch, Block, Rathbone, LLP, 238 Fed.Appx. 24 (6th Cir.2007) (least-sophisticated-consumer standard governs FDCPA claims)
- Greco v. Trauner, 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir.2005) (attorney involvement permissible if not misleading to least-sophisticated consumer)
- Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC., 650 F.3d 993 (3d Cir.2011) (letter deemed not from attorney where disclaimer inadequate)
- Wahl v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 556 F.3d 643 (7th Cir.2009) (debt-amount disclosure requirement under §1692g(a))