STROUSE v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, L.L.C., 2:12-cv-04417

Background

Plaintiff (Maryland resident) received debt-collection mailings addressed to variations of her name at her parents’ Pennsylvania address for an alleged $701.28 Sprint debt; she denied owing the debt.
Plaintiff’s counsel sent a January 19, 2012 letter disputing the debt, demanding verification (a copy of the Sprint contract), and requesting all future communications be sent to counsel.
Defendant (Enhanced Recovery Co.) sent (a) a February 2 envelope containing multiple Sprint billing statements addressed to the plaintiff’s name at her parents’ home and (b) a February 22 “Fraud Package” from "Sprint Fraud Management" to the same address, which included the disclosure: “This is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.”
Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly notified Defendant that Plaintiff never had a Sprint account, that communications should go to counsel, and that requested documents had not been received; Defendant later closed the account and requested deletion from credit bureaus.
Plaintiff sued under the FDCPA (claims under §§ 1692c(b), 1692c(c), 1692e(11), and 1692f) and under Pennsylvania’s FCEUA; Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue under §§ 1692c(b), 1692c(c), 1692e(11)	Plaintiff was “allegedly obligated” because Defendant’s mailings treated her as the debtor	Plaintiff is not a consumer because she did not owe the debt	Plaintiff has standing — FDCPA defines consumer as obligated or allegedly obligated, and Defendant’s conduct alleged obligation
§ 1692c(b): communication with third parties	Mailings to parents’ residence disclosed debt information to third parties	Mailings were addressed to plaintiff (not to parents) and thus not communications with third parties	Dismissed — court found Defendant did not directly communicate with a third party, so no §1692c(b) violation
§ 1692c(c): continuing to contact after cease request	Counsel’s letter requesting communications be sent to counsel functioned as a cease-and-desist; subsequent mailings were collection attempts to plaintiff	Mailings were responses to a verification request, not collection attempts, and thus within exception	Claim survives summary judgment — billing statements and Fraud Package were attempts to collect and violated §1692c(c)
§ 1692e(11): failure to disclose debt-collector status in subsequent communications	Billing statements failed to disclose they were from a debt collector after initial demand	Fraud Package disclosed collector status; statements were not collection attempts or otherwise exempt	Claim survives as to the billing statements (Fraud Package satisfied disclosure)
§ 1692f: unfair or unconscionable means	Defendant’s pattern (mailings after dispute, sending to parents) was unfair	Plaintiff knew she was not debtor; conduct insufficient for §1692f	Dismissed — plaintiff relied only on the same conduct underpinning other FDCPA claims and alleged no additional unfair conduct

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir.) (FDCPA construed broadly; apply least sophisticated debtor standard)
Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 550 F.3d 294 (3d Cir.) (least sophisticated debtor perspective protects gullible as well as shrewd)
Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir.) (communications analyzed from least sophisticated-debtor viewpoint)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard)
Piper v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir.) (factors for determining connection to debt collection)
Pollice v. Nat’l Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379 (3d Cir.) (context for §1692c(b) and collection-related communications)
Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350 (3d Cir.) (least sophisticated debtor and reasonable reading protections)
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.) (even least sophisticated debtor must read notices in entirety)