Richard Leonard v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C.
713 F. App'x 879
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Richard Leonard filed a putative class action under the FDCPA alleging a debt-collection letter misidentified the creditor for an American Express Gold Card account.
- Zwicker & Associates’ initial letter identified the creditor as "American Express" and listed the last five digits of the account; the alleged actual creditors were "American Express Centurion Bank" or "American Express Receivable Financing Corporation III LLC."
- Leonard argued the generic "American Express" designation was misleading because many entities use the name and the trademark owner that consumers know did not issue cards.
- He asserted violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) (failure to identify the creditor) and § 1692e(10) (false, deceptive or misleading representations).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that using the commonly known name "American Express" adequately identified the creditor and would not mislead the least sophisticated consumer.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding § 1692g does not require a debt collector to use a creditor’s full legal name and Zwicker’s letter was not misleading under § 1692e.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1692g(a)(2) requires a debt collector to identify the creditor by its full business/legal name | Leonard: Using the generic "American Express" instead of the full corporate name fails to identify the creditor and is plausibly misleading | Zwicker: Naming the commonly used trade name "American Express" accurately conveys creditor identity; no strict full-name requirement | Court: No bright-line rule; § 1692g satisfied by full business name, usual trade name, or common acronym — dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the letter was false, deceptive, or misleading under § 1692e(10) | Leonard: The generic name could confuse the least sophisticated consumer about which corporate entity the debt was owed to | Zwicker: The commonly used name conveys the same practical identity; consumers would not be misled | Court: Use of "American Express" was not false or misleading to the least sophisticated consumer — dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2015) (standard of review and pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) (FDCPA consumer-protection purpose and least-sophisticated-consumer standard)
- LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners, 601 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2010) (description of the least sophisticated consumer standard)
- Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985) (origin of least-sophisticated-consumer construct)
- Bourff v. Rubin Lublin, LLC, 674 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2012) (clarity required in § 1692g disclosures)
- Caceres v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 755 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2014) (when § 1692g variances may support § 1692e claims and analysis of misleading effect)
- Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1998) (creditor need not use full business name; may use usual trade name or acronym)
- Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (disclosure must be conveyed clearly to consumer)
- Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1998) (FTC commentary on FDCPA interpretation given considerable weight)