Rosen v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., 1:19-cv-05516-ARR-VMS

Background

Lea Rosen had a Con Edison account that went to collection with L J Ross Associates, Inc. (LJRA).
On October 1, 2018 LJRA mailed a collection letter stating “Amount Due: $543.93.” After that letter, Rosen’s husband paid $100 toward the debt.
On November 20, 2018 an LJRA representative called and spoke with Rosen’s husband (who answered “Yes” when asked if he was Lea); during the call the representative stated the balance was $443.93 and discussed an installment plan.
The husband asked LJRA to “send me bills” and “send me something in writing.” LJRA sent a November 21, 2018 letter labeled a “Statement Date: November 21, 2018” that again stated “Amount Due: $543.93” and included “This is an attempt to collect a debt.”
LJRA’s COO later testified the November letter was generated based on the husband’s request and characterized it as a copy of the October letter; Rosen disputed that she requested a copy of an old letter or that the November letter reflected the installment terms.
Rosen sued under the FDCPA alleging LJRA overstated the debt; the court granted Rosen summary judgment, held the November letter violated §1692e, rejected LJRA’s bona fide error defense, and awarded $500 statutory damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FDCPA applies to the November 21 letter	The letter was an attempt to collect and thus falls under the FDCPA	The letter was a non-collection copy sent in response to the husband’s request, so FDCPA protections do not apply	FDCPA applies: defendant initiated communications and letter said it was an attempt to collect
Whether the November letter violated §1692e by misrepresenting the amount	The letter falsely represented the amount due ($543.93) despite a $100 payment and the phone statement of $443.93	The phone call corrected the amount and plaintiff did not read the letter, so no reasonable confusion	Violates §1692e: under the least sophisticated consumer standard the letter could reasonably mislead about the amount owed
Whether the bona fide error defense under §1692k(c) shields LJRA	Rosen need not prove intent; LJRA must show the error was bona fide and it maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid errors	LJRA says it has internal policies and verbally informed the husband of the correct amount	Defense rejected: LJRA failed to show specific, reasonably adapted procedures or that verbal advisement was an established policy tied to preventing such errors
Appropriate statutory damages under §1692k(a)	Seek statutory damages for FDCPA violation	Argue mitigation because only one violation and correct amount was stated orally	Court awarded $500 (out of $1,000 cap) after weighing frequency, nature, and intent of noncompliance

Key Cases Cited

Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (adopts the least sophisticated consumer standard for FDCPA communications)
Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 1996) (FDCPA strict liability for false or misleading representations)
Vangorden v. Second Round, Ltd. P’ship, 897 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2018) (a misstatement of debt can cause consumers to pay again and is actionable)
Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., Inc., 786 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2015) (§1692e(10) is a broad catch-all for deceptive collection practices)
Maguire v. Citicorp Retail Servs., Inc., 147 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1998) (least sophisticated-consumer standard protects both gullible and shrewd consumers)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens and evidence rules)
Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F. Supp. 502 (D. Conn. 1990) (describes bona fide error defense elements under §1692k(c))