Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the effort does not involve filing or threatening a lawsuit. Compare McMahon, 744 F.3d at 1020 (dunning letters offering to “settle” time-barred debts could violate Act by leading debtors to believe the debts were legally enforceable); Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 2016) (effort to collect is not automatically unlawful, but letter violates FDCPA if it could lead unsophisticated consumer to believe her time-barred debt is legally enforceable); and Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., 776 F.3d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 2015) (reversing dismissal on pleadings; offer to settle time-barred debt could violate Act by failing to disclose that suit would be time-barred or that partial payment would remove statute of limitations bar), with Huertas, 641 F.3d at 33 (<HOLDING>), and Freyermuth, 248 F.3d at 771 (same). Even 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attempt to collect a timebarred debt was permissible if litigation not threatened (B) holding that because secured creditor did not attempt to collect its entire debt through the bankruptcy proceeding the liens in question were not property dealt with by the plan for  1141c purposes (C) holding assignee could collect debt on stated account (D) holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt (E) holding that plaintiffs allegation that debt collectors attempted to collect on a debt to a condominium association notwithstanding their knowledge that plaintiff did not really owe that debt to the condominium was sufficient to state a claim under the fdutpa
Output (English): holding that because secured creditor did not attempt to collect its entire debt through the bankruptcy proceeding the liens in question were not property dealt with by the plan for  1141c purposes