Sandoval v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc
2:19-cv-06475
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 2, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Sandoval was sent validation notices in July 2018 by Credit Corp. for an alleged WebBank debt of $22,392.78 (two notices dated July 10 and July 11, 2018).
- Sandoval requested validation (Oct. 24, 2018 and a Jan. 16, 2019 dispute); Credit Corp. provided documents on Nov. 16, 2018; Kirschenbaum & Phillips (K&P) provided verification documents on March 8, 2019.
- K&P sent an initial demand letter Dec. 31, 2018 and commenced a state collection action against Sandoval on Feb. 12, 2019; Sandoval answered and asserted defendants failed to provide a signed contract.
- Sandoval sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f for (a) filing/continuing the collection suit after allegedly failing to produce original signed documents and (b) sending two validation notices.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court evaluated whether the verification provided met FDCPA requirements and whether any communications were misleading.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the documents produced constituted adequate verification and that the new argument about two validation notices was not properly raised in the complaint.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ post-dispute documents satisfied the FDCPA "verification" requirement | Sandoval: verification should include original signed contract and the level of proof needed to prevail in litigation | Defendants: providing loan agreement, loan summary, TIL, borrower agreement, and account spreadsheets sufficiently verify the amount and creditor | Court: Verification does not require original signed contract; provided documents sufficiently verified the debt under FDCPA and summary judgment for defendants was appropriate |
| Whether filing/continuing the state collection action after the disputed validation violated §§ 1692e/1692f | Sandoval: continuing suit after failing to provide original documents was deceptive/unfair | Defendants: they provided adequate verification and thus prosecuting collection was not deceptive or unfair | Court: No FDCPA violation; prosecution of collection action was permissible because verification was adequate |
| Whether receipt of two nearly identical validation notices (July 10 & 11, 2018) created a triable FDCPA claim | Sandoval: two notices could confuse a least sophisticated consumer as to when the 30-day dispute period began | Defendants: not raised in the complaint as an FDCPA claim; thus not properly before the court | Court: Claim raised for first time in opposition; court declined to consider it and did not rely on it to deny summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, L.L.P., 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005) (articulating the "least sophisticated consumer" standard for FDCPA communications)
- Taylor v. Financial Recovery Services, 886 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2018) (collection notices are misleading if open to more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejection of idiosyncratic/unreasonable interpretations of collection notices)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard—no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment and requirement for nonmoving party to produce evidence)
- Hawkins-El v. First Am. Funding, LLC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (verification sufficient where debtor was provided loan and transaction documents)