Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05230/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05230-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roderik Cosio,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AFNI Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05230-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant AFNI Inc.’s (“AFNI”) motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 13, 16, 27.) For the following reasons, the 

Court will grant AFNI’s motion.

I. Background 

Plaintiff owed $159.87 to CenturyLink. (Doc. 13-1.) On February 12, 2019, AFNI, 

a debt collector contracted by CenturyLink to collect the debt, sent Plaintiff a collection 

letter. (Id.) The letter states, in relevant part:

DISCOUNT PAYMENT OFFER

Save $63.95 and resolve your account

We are making another attempt to contact you regarding your 

overdue account. In an effort to resolve this matter we will 

accept $95.92, 60% of the current balance. Once you pay this 

discounted amount, your account will be closed and marked 

settled in full with Afni, Inc. and CENTURYLINK.

(Id.) On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint for violations of the 

Case 2:19-cv-05230-DLR Document 28 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, asserting that the phrase 

“settled in full,” included in the letter is contradictory and materially misleading in 

violation of the FDCPA. (Doc. 1.) AFNI filed its motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim on January 6, 2020. The motion is now ripe. 

II. Legal Standard

To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007). The task when ruling on a motion to dismiss “is to evaluate whether the claims 

alleged [plausibly] can be asserted as a matter of law.” See Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 

1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When 

analyzing the sufficiency of a complaint, the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true 

and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 

1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). However, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680, and therefore are insufficient 

to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d

1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008).

III. Discussion

Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 to eliminate abusive debt collection practices 

by debt collectors without competitively disadvantaging debt collectors who refrain from 

such abusive practices. Wade v. Regional Credit Ass’n, 87 F.3d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1996)

(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)). Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, “[a] debt collector may not 

use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the 

collection of any debt.”

Plaintiff contends that AFNI’s use of the phrase “settled in full” within its collection 

letter violates the FDCPA because it is deceptive and misleading,1rendering Plaintiff 

1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the term “settled in full” is internally inconsistent

and materially misleading, because “settled means payment less than full” and “in full” 

means “paid in full.” (Doc. 1.) 

Case 2:19-cv-05230-DLR Document 28 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confused whether payment of the settlement amount would satisfy his account in entirety.

Whether conduct violates § 1692e . . . requires an objective 

analysis . . . whether the least sophisticated debtor would likely 

be misled by a communication. In this circuit, a debt 

collector’s liability under § 1692e of the FDCPA is an issue of 

law. The least sophisticated debtor standard is lower than 

simply examining whether particular language would deceive 

or mislead a reasonable debtor. The standard is designed to 

protect consumers of below average sophistication or

intelligence, or those who are uninformed or naive, particularly 

when those individuals are targeted by debt collectors. At the 

same time, the standard preserv[es] a quotient of 

reasonableness and presum[es] a basic level of understanding 

and willingness to read with care.

Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Serv., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and 

internal quotations omitted). Looking to this standard, the letter sent by AFNI to Plaintiff 

likely would not mislead or deceive even the least sophisticated debtor, nor did the letter 

misstate the character, amount, or legal status of the debt. 

Plaintiff’s contrary argument performs an unintuitive operation, removing the 

phrase “settled in full” from the context of the complete letter, and further dividing the 

terms “settled” and “in full” in order to manufacture confusion. However, “[a] debt 

collection letter’s potential to mislead the least sophisticated consumer must be assessed 

based on the entirety of the letter and thus a court should not myopically focus on one 

aspect of the letter when other language in the letter dispels such potential.” Jones v. 

Synergetic Commc’n, Inc., No. CV-18-1860-BAS-RBB, 2018 WL 6062414, at *7 (S.D. 

Cal. Nov. 20, 2018). The Court therefore looks to the letter in its entirety.

The letter itself is titled “DISCOUNTED PAYMENT OFFER,” making clear that 

full payment is not required to settle the account. (Doc. 13-1.) Furthermore, the body of 

the letter explains that AFNI would accept 60% of the current balance, $95.92, to resolve 

the balance. (Id.) Finally, the letter states, “[o]nce you pay this discounted amount, your 

account will be closed.” (Id.) A consumer with a basic level of understanding and a 

willingness to read with care would have understood the entirety of the letter to mean that, 

in exchange for a payment of $95.92, AFNI and Centurylink would resolve and close the 

account. Any other interpretation is unreasonable. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a 

Case 2:19-cv-05230-DLR Document 28 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claim on which relief can be granted.

IT IS ORDERED that AFNI’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. The 

Clerk is directed to terminate this case.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05230-DLR Document 28 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 4