Romano v. Schachter Portnoy, L.L.C., 1:17-cv-01014

Background

Plaintiff Rosaria Romano received a December 19, 2016 collection letter from Schachter Portnoy, L.L.C. regarding a $3,923.41 credit-card debt.
The letter’s subject line read: “Re: Our Client: CAVALRY SPV I, LLC … Original Creditor: SYNCHRONY BANK formerly known as GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK.”
The letter stated the firm had been retained by the above-named client to collect the amount due and expressly disclosed the firm was acting as a debt collector.
Romano alleged the letter violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) (FDCPA) because it did not adequately identify the current creditor/owner of the debt.
There was no allegation in the complaint that Cavalry SPV I, LLC was not the current owner, and no other communications were sent within five days of the letter.
Defendant moved to dismiss; the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding the letter adequately disclosed the current owner.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the collection letter satisfied FDCPA § 1692g(a)(2)’s requirement to identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed	Romano: naming a “client” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC) is ambiguous because debt-buying businesses often split ownership, servicing, and collection among multiple similarly named entities	Schachter: the letter, read as a whole, informs the recipient that the firm was retained by the above-named client to collect the debt, and thus identifies the current creditor	Court: the least-sophisticated-consumer standard supports finding the letter adequately identified the current owner; claim dismissed with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard in Second Circuit)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., 570 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard applied to complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions need not be accepted as true)
Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005) (FDCPA viewed through "least sophisticated consumer" standard)
Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (formulation of least sophisticated consumer standard)
Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (description of least sophisticated consumer)
Easterling v. Collecto, Inc., 692 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) (limits of protecting against bizarre interpretations)
Ellis v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 591 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2010) (least sophisticated consumer is neither irrational nor a dolt)
McStay v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2002) (collection letters should be read as a whole for FDCPA analysis)
Emanuel v. American Credit Exchange, 870 F.2d 805 (2d Cir. 1989) (no requirement to quote statute verbatim in collection letters)
Dewees v. Legal Servicing, LLC, 506 F. Supp. 2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (assessing whether least sophisticated consumer would understand creditor named in initial communication)
Janetos v. Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, 825 F.3d 317 (7th Cir.) (discussing ambiguity of terms like "transferred")