Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
BOBBI J. RIDDLE, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-0249
ATKINS & OGLE LAW OFFICES, LC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 6. Defendant failed
to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) and file a memorandum in support of its
motion. In lieu of a memorandum, Defendant relies upon a non-binding case and three-sentence
analysis directly into its motion. Id. The lone-cited case, Reynold v. Caine & Weinder Co., Inc. ,
acknowledges that a demand for payment can obscure a right to dispute a debt, but it did not in
that case because there was no demand for immediate payment nor a threat of adverse action. No.
17-7590, 2018 WL 5928123, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2018). To the contrary, the Complaint
alleges in this case that the letter sent by Defendant includes language that both requests payment
within thirty days and notifies the recipient of potential legal action. ECF No. 1, at 5. The Court
finds Reynold inapplicable and unpersuasive. Taken in the light most favorable the non-moving
party, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged potential violations of the provisions of §§ 1692g(b) & ROBERT C. CHAMBERSUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1692(e) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to
Dismiss.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
ENTER: July 30, 2019
-2-