Vazquez v. Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc.
217 F. Supp. 3d 1348
M.D. Fla.2016Background
- Plaintiff Nydia Vazquez sued Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland alleging a single FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c) for communicating after she disputed a debt.
- Complaint attached three exhibits: January collection notice, Plaintiff’s handwritten dispute, and a June correspondence from Defendant offering a fixed reduced-amount settlement (the “June Offer”).
- Defendant moved to dismiss with prejudice, arguing the June Offer is a permissible settlement communication under the FDCPA exceptions. Plaintiff opposed; Defendant replied.
- Court reviewed the pleadings and attached exhibits under Rules 8/10 and the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
- Court found the June Offer on its face to be an unequivocal, non-coercive settlement offer that falls within the § 1692c(c) exception and that the Complaint alleged no other wrongful conduct.
- Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend by a set deadline; dismissal with prejudice was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant’s June Offer violated §1692c(c) by communicating after Plaintiff disputed the debt | The June Offer continued communication after a written dispute and thus violated §1692c(c) | The June Offer is an unequivocal, non-coercive settlement offer — a “specified remedy” excepted from §1692c(c) prohibitions | The June Offer is a facially permissible settlement offer under the §1692c(c) exceptions; no plausible wrongful conduct alleged, so complaint dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must allege plausible claims)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (court may consider documents incorporated into complaint)
- Cruz v. Int'l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (settlement offer is a "specified remedy" under FDCPA)
- Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (non-coercive settlement offers are excepted communications)
- Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding L.L.C., 505 F.3d 769 (dismissal appropriate when attached communication is facially FDCPA-compliant)
- Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171 (dismiss when no construction of facts supports claim)
- Smith v. ARS Nat'l Servs., Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (treating settlement offers as §1692c(c) exceptions at motion stage)