713 F. App'x 879
11th Cir.
2017

Richard LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-10174

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

November 1, 2017

711 Fed. Appx. 879

Non-Argument Calendar

Likewise, in , we held that a defendant had not shown that his substantial rights were impacted where “the sentencing transcript shows that rehabilitation was merely an ancillary concern.” .

On this record, Boatwright has not shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the error. See . True, the court mentioned concerns that could be viewеd as rehabilitative in nature in imposing its sentence, but the court explained that the § 3553(a) factors driving its sentence included the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. The court‘s discussion makes clear that it reasoned that each of thеse factors established the need for counseling and treatment opportunities and that provision of these opportunities would protect the public. Specifically, the court contemplated that the sentence would protect the public by making it less likely that Boatwright would again participate in similar conduct and more likely that Boatwright would be “able to find gainful employment and be the respectable citizen of this community” and be a “productive member of society.”

And most significantly, nothing in the record suggests that the court would have imposed a lighter sentence had it not mentioned opportunities that it hoped would positively affect Boatwright (аnd therefore the public safety). On the contrary, it appears that the very reason the court imposed a sentence 14 months below the low end of the guideline range was based on the premise that programs available to Boatwright in federal prison would allow Boatwright not to be a danger to the public when he was releаsed from imprisonment.

Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the district court‘s error may reasonably be viewed as having “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” . So we decline to exercise our discretion to vacate the sentence.

V.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court in all respects.

AFFIRMED.

Leo W. Desmond, Sovathary Keley Jacobson, Law Office of Leo W. Desmond, Vero Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Brian C. Frontino, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Richard Leonard appeals from the district court‘s dismissal of his putative class-action lawsuit against Zwicker & Associates, P.C. (“Zwicker“), for violating the Fair Dеbt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA“), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p. Leonard‘s claims are based on Zwicker‘s alleged failure in a letter to Leonard about a consumer credit-card debt, to accurately identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that Zwicker adequately identified the name of the creditor and that the communication was not misleading. After careful review, we agree with the district court and therefore affirm the dismissal ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‍of Leonard‘s complaint.

I.

According to Leonard‘s amended complaint, the operative filing in this case, Zwicker, a debt collector, sought to collect a consumer debt from Leonard on an American Express Gold Card credit-card account issued by American Express Centurion Bank. On December 9, 2015, Zwicker mailed Leonard a letter seeking payment of the debt ($14,619.71), which was Zwicker‘s initial communication with Leonard about the debt. The letter identified the creditor as “American Express” and listеd the final five digits of an account number.

Leonard alleged that Zwicker misnamed the creditor as “American Express,” when the “actual creditor” was either “American Express Centurion Bank,” which owned and serviced the credit-card account, or “American Express Receivable Financing Corporation III LLC,” which owned the credit-cаrd account receivables through an agreement with American Express Centurion Bank. He further alleged that this misidentification was confusing because numerous different entities identified themselves as “American Express,” including over fifty business entities in Florida whose names began with “American Express,” and because “American Express” was a trademark оwned by an entity that did not issue credit cards.

Based on these allegations, Leonard claimed that Zwicker failed to identify “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed,” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2), and sent a false, deceptive, or misleading communication to attempt to collect a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Zwicker moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

The district court granted Zwicker‘s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. The court rejected Leonard‘s “bright-line rule that a debt collector must always identify the creditor by its full business name.” And the court found that Leonard‘s claims failed because Zwicker‘s use of “American Express” adequately and accurately identified the creditor and was not misleading to the least sophisticated consumer. Leonard now appeals.

II.

We review de novo the district court‘s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in favor of the plaintiff. . We also review de novo the district court‘s interpretation of a statute. .

III.

The FDCPA is a “consumer-protection statute intended to ‘eliminate abusive debt collection practices,’ to ensurе that ‘debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged,’ and ‘to promote consistent state action in protecting consumers against debt collection abuses.‘” (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)). It regulates the conduct of “debt collectors” in part by granting consumers the right to sue debt сollectors for violating its provisions. .

Because Congress enacted the statute primarily to protect consumers, we evaluate the circumstances giving rise to an alleged FDCPA violation from the perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer.” See ; . The least sophisticated consumer “possess[es] a rudimеntary amount of information about the world and a willing-ness to read a collection notice with some care.” ; see also (the least sophisticated consumer is “on the low side of reasonable capacity“). That standard protects “naive consumers” and “prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of colleсtions notices by preserving a quotient of reasonableness.” .

Two FDCPA provisions are at issue in this case: §§ 1692g and 1692e. Section 1692g requires a debt collector to provide the consumer with certain information “in the initial communication” about a debt or within five days of the initial communication. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). The required information includes the amount of the dеbt, “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed,” and other ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‍information about the debtor‘s right to dispute the validity of the debt and the consequences of not doing so. Id. § 1692g(a)(1)-(5). Section 1692e prohibits debt collectors from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means to collect a debt. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).1

A. Section § 1692g

Leonard clаims that Zwicker violated § 1692g by failing to accurately identify the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed in the initial communication. Leonard maintains that “American Express” was not the actual creditor and that a consumer states a plausible claim under § 1692g when he or she alleges that a debt collector misidentified the creditor by a generic name that is used by numerous other corporate entities. In those circumstances, Leonard argues, the question of whether the least sophisticated consumer would have been confused by the debt collector‘s letter is a question of fact for the jury.2

Generally, the question of whether the least sophisticated сonsumer would be confused or misled by a debt collector‘s communication is one for the jury. . However, the question of whether a plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under § 1692g is a legal question for the court.

“To satisfy § 1692g(a), the debt collector‘s notice must state the required information clearly enough that the recipient is likely to understand it.” ; (“It is not enough for a debt collection agency simply to include the proper debt validation notice in a mailing to a consumer—Congress intended that such notice be clearly conveyed.“). In other words, the notice should be clear enough that a naive consumer comes away from the notice understаnding the “identity of the creditor.” See .

At the same time, nothing in the FDCPA expressly requires that debt collectors use a creditor‘s full business name or its name of incorporation when identifying the “name of the creditor” in a § 1692g notice. The FDCPA does not state how a creditor must be named in order to comply with § 1692g, much less define “name” as “full business name” or “nаme of incorporation.” And incorporating such a strict requirement would elevate form over substance. Cf. (“[P]urported compliance with the form of the statute should not be given sanction at the expense of the substance of the [FDCPA].“). As the district court recognized, requiring a debt collector to identify the creditor by its full business name would nоt always result in greater clarity to a naive consumer, who may be more familiar with a commonly used trade name.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC“) and federal courts have taken a similar approach when construing other FDCPA provisions requiring the disclosure of a debt collector‘s or creditor‘s “name” or “true name” to a cоnsumer. Under § 1692e(14), for example, the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using any name “other than the true name of the debt collector‘s business, company, or organization.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14). The FTC has issued commentary stating that a debt collector does not violate § 1692e(14) if the collector “use[s] its full business name, the name under which it usually transacts business, or a commonly-used acronym.” Federal Trade Commission, Statements of General Policy or Interpretation, Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 53 Fed. Reg. 50097 (1988). Because the FTC is the federal agency tasked with “enforcement and administration of the FDCPA,” that interpretation is “accorded considerable weight.” .

Likewise, the Second Circuit has stated that “a creditor need not use its full business ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‍name or its name of incorporation to avoid FDCPA coverage” under § 1692a(6). . Section 1692a(6) provides that a creditor collecting its own debts may be treated as a debt collector if it uses “any name other than [its] own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Relying on the FTC‘s commentary, the Second Circuit stated that the creditor may use, instead of its full business name, “the name under which it usually transacts business, or a commonly-used acronym.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In light of this persuasive authority, the consumer-protection purрoses of the FDCPA, and the plain terms of § 1692g, we agree with the district court that no bright-light rule requires a debt collector to “always identify the creditor by its full business name” in order to avoid liability under § 1692g. Rather, consistent with the FTC‘s commentary, a debt collector may use the creditor‘s full business name, the name under which the creditor usually transacts business, or a cоmmonly used acronym.

Here, the district court properly dismissed Leonard‘s § 1692g claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Zwicker clearly identified “American Express” as the name of the creditor. Its use of “American Express,” instead of the full business name “American Express Centurion Bank” or “American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III, LLC,” provides accuratе information to the consumer about the creditor‘s identity. “American Express” is the name under which the financial-services company usually transacts business, and the company is commonly referred to by that name. That identification was not technically “false,” any more than a commonly used nickname could be considered a “falsе” identification of a person. Allowing Leonard‘s § 1692g claim to go forward in these circumstances would be to adopt the hyper-technical construction of the statute that we rejected above. Accordingly, Leonard failed to state a claim under § 1692g.

B. Section 1692e

Section 1692e prohibits debt collectors from using any “false, deceptivе, or misleading” representation to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). “The use of ‘or’ in § 1692e means that, to violate the FDCPA, a representation by a ‘debt collector’ must merely be false, or deceptive, or misleading.” .

Leonard argues that the least sophisticated consumer would have been confused or misled by Zwicker‘s reference tо “American Express” because numerous other entities incorporate the name “American Express” in their names, including another American Express entity (American Express, FSB) that issues credit cards to consumers in Florida. Omitting the “true name” of the creditor, Leonard argues, would leave the least sophisticated consumer confused аs to which potential “American Express” entity on whose behalf the debt collector was attempting to collect.

Here, the district court properly dismissed Leonard‘s § 1692e claim for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). As we have explained, Zwicker‘s use of “American Express” to identify the name of the creditor was not techniсally false. Nor would the least sophisticated consumer have been confused or misled as to the identity of the creditor as a result of Zwicker‘s letter.

A debt collector‘s failure to provide the information required by § 1692g is actionable as a violation of § 1692e “if the variance is one that would tend to mislead the least sophisticated consumer.” . In , the debt collector‘s letter incorrectly “substituted ‘creditor’ for ‘debt collector’ when informing the ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‍consumer of who would assume that the debt was valid if the debt was not contested within thirty days.” ; see 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). Assuming arguendo that the error might have deterred the least sophisticated consumer from disputing the validity of the debt, we nevertheless concluded that the letter did not mislead. . We explained that “because the debt collector is obviously the agent of the creditor, the same implication arises from the notice required by § 1692g(a)(3) as from [the debt collector‘s] erroneous statement.” “In other words, the least sophisticated consumer would think that if the debt collector was entitled to assume that the debt is valid, the creditor would have the same right.” Accordingly, we held that “because the same implication arises” whether the language of the notice or the language of the statute was used, “the letter did not mislead.”

Similar reasoning applies here. Assuming arguendo that the least sophisticated consumer would be left confused as to whiсh potential “American Express” entity on whose behalf the debt collector was attempting to collect, “the same implication arises” if Zwicker used the creditor‘s full business name, as Leonard suggests § 1692g(a)(2) requires. Cf. A naive consumer, who is unfamiliar with the internal corporate structure of the American Express Company would be no morе confused as to the identity of the creditor by the commonly used “American Express” than by the full business names “American Express Centurion Bank” or “American Express Receivable Financing Corporation III LLC.” Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Zwicker‘s use of “American Express” was not misleading to the least sophisticated consumer. The court properly dismissed Leonard‘s § 1692e claim for failure to state a claim.

IV.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Leonard‘s complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

PER CURIAM

Notes

1
Section 1692e provides the general rule that “[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the сollection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The statute then goes on to list specific conduct that violates § 1692e, including, as relevant here, “[t]he use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Because the more specific subsection adds little to the general rule in this case, we use the general rule‘s broader formulation of “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means.”
2
Both parties assume, and the district court found, that the least-sophisticated-consumer standard applies to claims under § 1692g. So far, we have aрplied that standard to claims under § 1692e and § 1692f. See . We have not extended that standard to claims under § ‍​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‍1692g, though other circuits have done so. See, e.g., ; ; . We see no reason to disagree with these other circuits, but, regardless, we need not and do not decide the issue here. Because both parties assume that the standard applies to § 1692g, we make that assumption as well.
Read the detailed case summary