T he H o no rable P aul A
. C rott y , of t he U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct C o urt f o r t he So ut hern D i st ri ct of N ew Y o rk, * sitti n g b y d e sig n a tio n . 1 09-1247-c v El lis v. Sol omo n & Sol omo n, P.C.
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T August Term, 2009 (Argued: Novembe r 20, 2009 Dec ided: J anuar y 13, 2010) Docke t No. 09-1247-c v J AN E T E LL IS , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. S OL OMON AND S OL OMON , P.C., J UL I E S. F AR I NA , AND D O U G LA S F I S HER De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts
. B e fo re : C A BR A N ES and S A CK , Circuit Judges , and C R OT TY , District Judge
. * Def endants-a ppellants Solomon and Sol omon, P.C ., J ulie S. Far ina and Doug las Fisher appea l from an or der of

the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ( J anet Bond Arterton, Judge ) gra nti ngpla int if

f- a pp e lle e Jane t E lli s summa ry jud g me nt o n h e r c la im
un de r t he F a ir De bt C oll e c tio n Pr a c tic e s A c t ( “ F DC PA” ). Th e Di str ic t Co ur t c on c lud e d th at defe ndants-appe llants violated the FD CPA by persona lly

servingEllis with a summ ons and complaint duringthe FD CPA thi rty -day validation period, without explaining that
c o mm e n c e me n t o f

th e la w s u it d id n o t a f f e c t t h e r igh ts s e t f

o rth in th e v a li d ati o nn o ti c e . We2

ag ree , and hold that servic e of pr ocess dur ing the validation period must, at a minimum, be prec eded or

acc ompanied by

notice to the consume r cla rifying that the lawsuit does not in any way alter the information containe d in the validation notice. A F F I RMED .

J ONATHAN E L L I OT , Z eldes, Ne edle & Cooper, P.C., for De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts . J OAN NE S. F AULK NER , N e w H ave n, Conne c tic ut, for Plainti

ff-Appellee
. Thomas R. Dominczk, Maurice & Nee dleman, P.C., (Dona ld Maurice , J r., Maur ice & Nee dleman, P.C., To mio B . N art a , Si mmo nd s & Na ri ta L L P, E ri c M. Be rman, Er ic M. Be rman, P.C., on the brief ), for Amicus Curiae Th e Natio na l A sso c iatio n o f R e ta il Collection Attorney s, in s up po rt o f D e fe nd an tsAp pe lla nts . P A U L A. C R OT TY , District Judge : Def endants-a ppellants, the law f

irm Solom on and Solomon, P.C . (“Solomon”), a nd two of its attorney s, J ulie S. Far ina (“ Fa rina” ) and D oug las Fisher (“F isher”) (collec tively

“the defe ndants”), a

ppeal f rom a de cision and judg ment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ( J anet B ond Arter ton, Judge ) g rantingsummary judgme nt to plaintiffappellee J anet Ellis (“Ellis”) on he r cla im under the F air De bt Coll ection Prac tices Ac t, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“F DCPA” or “the Act”)
. With in f ive da y s o f a de bt c oll e c tor ’s ini tia l c omm un ic atio n w itha

de bto r ( re fe rr e d to in the Act a s a “c onsumer”) , the debt collec tor must send the consumer a wr itten “validation notice” setting f orth, amongother thing s, the consumer ’s rig ht to disput e the de bt. See 15 U.S.C. §3

1692g (a) . The c onsumer has thirty day s from re ceipt of the validation notice to send the de bt collector a notification disput ing the debt. See § 1692g (a) , (b). Unle ss the consumer disputes the de bt, the de bt c oll e c tor

is g e ne ra lly

fr e e to c on tin

ue its c oll e c tio n a c tiv iti e s a nd to c omm un ic ate with the consumer dur ing the thirty -day “validation per iod.” See § 1692g (b); Jacobson v. Hea lthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F .3d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 2008). Collection ac tiviti es and communications by

the debt collec tor duringthe validation per iod must not , howeve r, oversha dow or be inconsistent with the disclosures the Ac t require s be provided in the va lidation notice. See § 1692g (b); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S ., 74 F.3d 30, 35 ( 2d Cir. 1996). After sendinga validation notice, a nd duringthe validation per iod, the defe ndants ca used
a Conne c tic ut S tate Mars ha ll t o s e rv e El lis wi th a summo ns and

c omp la int . T he de fe nd ants failed to infor

m Ellis t hat commenc ement of the lawsuit had no ef fec t on the information contained in the va lidation notice. The District Court found that the se rvice of the summons and the c omp lia

nt o ve rs ha do we d th e va lid atio n n oti c e in v iol atio n o f t he F DC PA. Th e de fe nd ants argue that under

the controlling“lea st sophist icated c onsumer” sta ndard, se rvice of the summons and complaint did not oversha dow the disclosure s made in the va lidation notice. We disag ree , and for the re asons that follow, we aff irm the District Court. Bac kgr ound Th e mate ri a l f

a c ts a re no t in dis pute . E lli s o we d $ 17 ,8 09 .1 3 o n h e r C iti ba nk (S outh Dakota) , N.A. (“ Citi bank”) cre dit card. Wishing to collec t, in May , 2005, Citi bank re fer red Ellis’ acc ount to Sol omon “with authorization to sue.” On May 13, 2005, Solomon m ailed a le tte r t o E lli s at he r h ome in G re e nw ic h, Conne c tic ut. Af te r s e tti ngfo rt

h th e amou

nt c la ime d to be ow e d b y

El lis to C iti ba

nk , th e le tte r s tate s:4 The a bove name d cre ditor has re fer red this ac count to our off ice f or collection with a notation that all communications cease and desist. Under F e de ra l L aw, ho we ve r, we mus t pr ov ide y ou wi th c e rt a in d isc los ur e s. This is an attempt to collect a de bt. Any information obtained will be use d for that pur

pose. This communication is from a de bt collector. Calls ar e randomly monitored to ensure quality service
. VA L I DA TI ONNO TI CE Un le ss you

no tif y thi s o ff ic e wi thi n th ir

ty (3 0) da y s a ft e r r e c e ivi ngthi s notice that you dispute the validity of the de bt, or any

portion thereof

, the debt will be assumed valid by

this office. I f you notify

this office in wr iting within the thirty (30) da y period that the de bt, or any portion thereof

is disputed, this office will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judg ment ag ainst y ou and a c opy of such ve rification will be mailed to y ou by this office. U

pon y our written reque st within t he thirty

(30) da y period, this office will provide y ou with the name a nd addre ss of the orig inal cre ditor, if differ ent from the c urre nt cre ditor. El lis a c kn ow le dg e s th at sh e re c e ive d th e le tte r a nd that sh e ne ve r d isp ute d th e de bt. Shortly afte r the letter

was sent, Ellis’ file wa s g iven to Fa rina for revie w. Fa

rina de cided to take leg al ac tion and had anothe r Solomon attorney prepa re a summons and complaint to be filed on Citibank’s behalf in a collec tion action ag ainst Ellis i n Connecticut Superior Court. The complaint, which F arina

signe d, claims that Ellis failed to make pa y ments on cre dit ex tended by Citi ba nk and de mand s $ 17 ,8 09 .1 3 in

dama g e s in

a dd iti on to c os ts a nd dis burs e me nts . B oth Fa rina a nd Fisher signe d the summons, which has a r eturn date of July 19, 2005. Under

the heading , “NOT I CE TO EACH DEF ENDAN T,” the summons states, in bold and in ca pital le tte rs : “ YO U A RE B EI

NGSUE D. ” Th e summo ns a lso state s th at “ [t]o r e sp on d to thi s Summons , or to be infor

med of fur

ther proc eeding s, y ou or your attorne y must file a form c alled an ‘A ppear ance ’ with the Clerk of the above- named Court at the a bove Court addr ess on or befor e the se cond day

afte r the re turn date.” Def endants who be lieve that they have insura

nce
cover ag e for

the claim asse rted in the c omplaint are a dvised to “immediately take the Summons5

and Complaint to y our insuranc e re prese ntative.” De fenda nts with questions about the summons
are direc ted to “consult an attorney promptly .” El lis wa s p e rs on a lly

se rv e d w iththe summo ns and c omp la int

by a Conne c tic ut S tate Marsha ll at her home on Ma y 31, 2005, when ther e we re two more wee ks to run on the validation period. On June 13, 2005, the summons and complaint wer e filed in Connec ticut Superior Court. The de fenda nts never sa id any

thing to Ellis reg ardingthe ef fec t of the lawsuit on the information conve y ed in the May 13, 2005 letter. On Octobe r 20, 2005, Ellis filed suit ag ainst the defe ndants under the FDCPA, and on Ap ri l 3, 20 08 , E lli s ame nd e d th e c omp la int . T he ame nd e d c omp la int a sse rt s th at th e de fe nd ants vio late d nume ro us pr ov isi on s o f t he F DC PA, inc lud ing§§ 16 92 c -1 69 2g , in the c ours e of

the ir eff orts to collect the de bt alleg edly owed by Ellis to C itibank. As relief , Ellis sought damag es and equitable relief

, in addition to attorney s’ fe es and c osts. Ellis moved for par

tial summary

judgme nt, and def

endants c ross-moved f

or summary jud g me nt o n a ll o f t

he c la ims in t

he ame nd e d c omp la int . T he Di str ic t Co ur t g ra nte d E lli s summary judgme nt on her c laim that the defe ndants violated § 1692gof the F DCPA by serving he r w iththe summo ns and c omp la int

duri ngthe va lid atio n p e ri od , h old ingthat, in a ca se such a s this, where Plaintiff is serve d with a summons and complaint in a collection ac tion ag ainst her by a debt- collector

within the 30-day

validation period but no ac company ing c ommunication is given to the c onsumer assur ing he r that the validation per iod and rig hts remain in forc e and a re not a ffe cted by

service of the law suit, the earlier

notice of the consumer’ s rig hts is overshadowe d. Havingfiled suit ag ainst Ms. Ellis without any clar ifying c ommunication that her dis pute ri g ht c on tin

ue d n otw ith sta

nd ingthe pe nd e nc y

of the su it, De fe nd ants violated the F DCPA . . . . Ellis v. S omon & Somon, P.C., 599 F. Supp. 2d 298, 304 (D. Conn. 2009).W i t h t he cons ent of t he part i es , t he N at i onal Ass oci at i on of Ret ai l Co l l ect i on At t orn ey s ha s f i l ed an 1 a m ic u s b rie f i n su p p o rt o f t h e d e fen d a n ts. 6 Since a sing le violation of the F DCPA is sufficient to impose liabilit y , the District Court dismiss ed Ellis’ rema ining c laims as moot, denied the def endants’ motion for summer y judgme nt on the § 1692gclaim, and de nied the re mainder of the def endants’ motion as moot. Ellis was
awa rded $1,000 in statutory

damag es in addition to costs and attorney s’ fe es. This timely appea l ensued. 1 Stand ard of Review We r e vie w a

g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt u

nd e r R ule 56 of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e de novo . Molinari v. Bloomber g , 564 F.3d 587, 595 ( 2d Cir. 2009). The judg ment wi ll b e up he ld “ on ly

if the e vid e nc e , v ie we d in

the light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he pa rt y a g a ins t whom it is entered, de monstrates that there are no g enuine issued of materia l fac t and that the judgme nt was wa

rra nted as a matter of la

w.” B arf ield v. N. Y. City

Hea lth & Hosps. Corp., 537 F .3 d 1 32 , 1 40 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ) ( c iti ngF e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ); Ce lot e x Cor p. v. Catr e tt, 47 7 U .S. 317, 322-23 (1986) ; Rubens v. Mason, 527 F.3d 252, 254 ( 2d Cir. 2008)). Discussion Congr ess ena cted the F DCPA to elimi nate “ abusive pra ctices in the de bt collection industry , and . . . to ensure that ‘those debt c ollectors who r efr ain from usingabusive de bt collection pra ctices a

re not c ompetitively

disadvantag ed.’” J acobson, 516 F .3d at 89 (quoting15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)). T he Ac t focuses on r egulating inter actions betwe en “de bt collectors” and

“ c on sume rs .” El lis , a s a

“ natur a l pe rs on

ob lig ate d o r a lle g e dly

ob lig ate d to pa

y any de bt, ” c le arl y fi ts the de fi nit ion

of “ c on sume r, ” 15 U. S.C. § 1 69 2a (3 ); and the pa rt ie s a g re e that th e de fe nd ants7

are “debt c ollectors.” § 1692a (6); see Heintz v. J enkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299 (1995). FDCPA § 1692g , “Va lidation of debts,” wa s enac ted to “eliminate the r ecur ringproblem of debt c ollectors dunningthe wrongperson or attempting to c ollect debts which the consumer has alre ady

paid.” S. Rep. No. 95-382, a t 4 (1977), re

pr inte d in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1659, 1699;
see a lso Bar

tlett v. Heibel, 128 F.3d 497, 499 ( 7th Cir. 1997) (“The se provisions are intended for the ca se in which the de bt collector, be ing a hirelingof the c reditor r ather than the cr editor itself, may lack f irst-hand knowle dg e of the debt.”) . Unless set for th in the debt collector ’s “initial communication” with the c onsumer, the de bt collector must send the c onsumer a written

“ va lid atio n n oti c e ” wi thi n f ive da y s o f t he ini tia l c omm

un ic atio n. Th e va lid atio n n oti c e mus t contain: (1 ) t he amou nt o f t he de bt; (2) the na me of the c reditor to whom the de bt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the c onsumer, within thirty day s after

rec eipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the de bt, or any

portion thereof

, the debt will be assumed to be va lid by

the debt collec tor; (4 ) a state me nt t

hat if the c on sume r n oti fi e s th e de bt c oll e c tor in wri tin gwi thi n the thirty -day

period that the de bt, or any portion thereof

, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judg ment ag ainst the consumer a

nd a copy of such ve rification or judgme nt will be mailed to the consumer by

the debt collec tor; and (5) a statement that, upon the c onsumer’s wr itten reque st within t he thirty -day period, the de bt collector w ill provide the consumer with the name a

nd addre ss of the orig inal cre ditor, if differ ent from the c urre nt cre ditor. § 1692g (a)
. After rec eivinga validation notice, the consumer ha s thirty day s to mail a notice to the debt collec tor disputing the de bt or reque sting the na me and a ddress of the orig inal cre ditor.8

J acobson, 516 F .3d at 95. I f the c onsumer disputes the debt or reque sts the name and a ddress of the or ig ina l c re dit or

duri ngthe thi rt

y -d ay “ va lid atio n p e ri od ,” the de bt c oll e c tor mus t “ c e a se collection of the debt, or a ny disputed portion thereof

” until the debt collec tor verif ies the debt or ob ta ins the name and

a dd re ss o f t he or ig ina l c re dit or

and “ a c op y of su c h v e ri fi c atio n . . . or

name and addr ess of the or igina l cre ditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collec tor.” § 1692g (b). Howeve r, the va lidation period “is not a ‘grac e per iod’; in the absenc e of a dispute notice, the debt collec tor is allowed to demand immediate pay ment and to continue c ollection activity .” J acobson, 516 F .3d at 89; see § 1692g (b) ( as ame nded by the Fina ncial Servic es Regulatory Relief Ac t of 2006, Pub. L . No.109-351, § 802(c ), 120 Stat. 1966, 2006-07 (2006)) . Whil e debt collector s are larg ely

fre e to continue c ollection activities duringthe validation per iod, this C ourt has longheld that validation per iod collection ac tiviti es and c ommunications must not

“ ov e rs ha do w” or

“ c on tr a dic t” the va lid atio n n oti c e . Jac ob so n, 51 6 F .3 d at 90 -9 1; M c Sta y v. I .C. Sy s., Inc., 308 F .3d 188, 190 (2d Cir. 2002); Clomon v. J ackson, 988 F .2d 1314, 1319 (2d Cir. 1993). When Congr ess amende d the FD CPA in 2006, i t adopted and c odified the Court’s approa ch. Section 1692g (b) now pr ovides: “Any collection ac tiviti es and c ommunication during the 30-da y period may

not overshadow

or be inc onsistent with the disclosure of the c onsumer’s rig ht to disput e the de bt or reque st the name a nd addre ss of the orig inal cre ditor.” § 1692g (b) ( as amende d by

the Fina ncial Servic es Regulatory Relief Ac t of 2006, Pub. L . No.109-351, § 802(c ), 120 Stat. 1966, 2006-07 (2006)); se e Jacobson, 516 F.3d at 91 (noting that “Cong ress ha s now codified our

approa ch . . . .”)
. Whether collec tion activities or communications within the validation period over shadow
or ar e inconsistent with a validation notice is de termined unde r the “ least sophisticated9

consumer” standard. G rec o v. Traune r, Cohen & Thomas, L .L .P, 412 F.3d 360, 363 (2d Cir. 2005). It is an objective standa rd, desig ned to protec t all consumers, “ the gullible as well as the shrewd.” J acobson, 516 F .3d at 90. A collec tion activity or communication “oversha dows or contra dicts the validation notice ‘if it would make the lea st sophist icated c onsumer unce rtain as to her rights.’” I d. (quotingRussell, 74 F.3d at 35). The hy pothetical lea st sophist icated c onsumer does not have “the astuteness of a ‘Philadelphia lawyer’ or eve n the sophistication of the ave rag e, eve ryday , common consumer,” but is neither irrational nor a dolt. Russell, 74 F.3d at 34. While protectingthose consumer s
mos t su sc e pti ble to a

bu siv e de bt c oll e c tio n p ra c tic e s, thi s Co ur t ha s b e e n c are fu l no t to c on fl ate lack of sophistication with unreasonable ness. See Mc Stay , 308 F.3d at 190-91 (“[T]his C ourt ha s . . . ma de c le ar t

hat ‘ in c ra ft inga

no rm that pr ote c ts t

he na ive and

the c re du lou s th e c ourt s have c are fully

prese rved the conce pt of rea sonablene ss.’” (quotingClomon, 988 F.2d at 1319)). As su c h, “ the F DC PA d oe s n ot a id p la int if fs wh os e c la ims are ba se d o n ‘ biza rr e or idi os y nc ratic interpre tations of collection notices.’ ” Jacobson, 516 F.3d at 90 (quoting Clomon, 988 F.2d a t 1320). Indeed, “ some courts have held that ‘ even the least sophisticated c onsumer ca n be pr e sume d to po sse ss a

ru dim e nta

ry amou nt o f i nf or matio n a bo ut t he wo rl d a

nd a wi lli ng ne ss t o
rea d a collec tion notice with some car e.’” Gre co, 412 F .3d at 363 (quotingClomon, 988 F.2d at 1318-19). To rec over da

mag es under

the FD CPA, a consumer doe s not need to show intentional conduct on the pa

rt of the de bt collector. The Act “is a strict liability

statute, and the de g ree of a defe ndant’s culpa

bility may only be conside red in c omputing dama g es.” B entley v. Gre at L akes Collection Bure au, Inc., 6 F .3d 60, 63 (2d Cir. 1993) (inter nal citation omitted) (citingClomon,10

988 F.2d at 1320; 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(b))
. In Goldman v. Cohen, 445 F .3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006), this Court held that the
commence ment of a la

wsuit by a debt c ollector see king to r ecove r an unpa id consumer de bt qualified a s an “initial communication” f or purpose s of § 1692g (a) . Since the debt c ollector’s ini tia l c omm

un ic atio n w iththe c on sume r w a s th e ini tiatio n o f a laws uit , th e de bt c oll e c tor ha d to send the c onsumer a va lidation notice within five day s of servic e. The Court rec og nized, ho we ve r, that “ [i]n c a se s w he re de bt c oll e c tor s se nd de bto rs a va lid atio n n oti c e e ith e r a lon gwi th
a summo ns and

c omp la int

or sh or tly the re a ft e r . . . [the re is a ] ri sk that so me de bto rs wi ll b e c ome confuse d.” Goldman, 445 F .3d at 157. Seekingto avoid such conf usion, the Court ex plained that “it is imperative that a de bt collector ( 1) ‘make clea r that the a dvice c ontained in the § 1692g
va lid atio n n oti c e in n o w ay a lte rs the de bto r' s r ig hts or ob lig atio ns wi th r e sp e c t to the laws uit ’ and (2) ‘empha siz [e] that courts set diff ere nt deadlines for

filings.’ ” I d. (quoting Thomas v. L aw F ir m of Simp so n & Cy

bak, 39 2 F .3 d 9 14 , 9 19 (7 th C ir . 2 00 4) (e n b anc ) r e v’ g34 5 F .3 d 6 96 (7 th Cir. 2004)). The Court joined the Seventh Circuit, in exhorti ngdebt collec tors who choose to send § 1692gvalidation notices along with paper

work initiating le g al proc eeding s to send debtors a notice , such as one c on ta ini ngthe fo llo wi nglangua g e , th at w ill e ns ur e c omp lia nc e wi th t he F DC PA wh ile on ly

min ima lly

dis ru pti ngthe lit ig atio n p ro c e ss: This advice pe rtains to y our dea lings with me a s a debt c ollector. I t do e s n ot a ff

e c t your d e a lin g s w iththe c ourt , a nd in p art ic ula

r i t does not cha

ng e the time at whic h y ou must answer the complaint [or other leg al pleading ]. The summons i s a command f rom the c ourt , n ot f

ro m me , a

nd y ou mus t f oll owits ins tr

uc tio ns e ve n if y ou dis pute the va lid ity

or amou nt o f t he de bt. Th e a dv ic e in t

his letter a lso does not affe ct my relations with t he cour

t. As a lawyer, Imay file pape rs in the suit acc ordingto the court' s rules and the jud g e ' s in str

uc tio ns .11

I d. (quoting Thomas, 392 F.3d a t 919-20). Whil e the 2006 a

mendments to the FD CPA superce ded Goldman’ s holding that the instit ution of a lawsuit constitutes an initial communication, see § 1692g (d) ( added by the Financ ial Service s Reg ulatory Relief Ac t of 2006, Pub. L . No.109-351, § 802(a ), 120 Stat. 1966, 2006 (2006)) , there is stil l the rea l potential for conf usion when a c onsumer is serve d with a laws uit duri ngthe va lid atio n p e ri od . A s e xpla ine d b y the Di str ic t Co ur

t, “ [w]itho ut s ome explanation to the consumer of the relationship between [the] sui t and [the] provisions in the notice, it may

well appe ar to the le ast sophisticated consumer that beingtaken to cour

t trumps
any oth e r o ut- of

-c ourt ri g hts sh e ha d. ” El lis , 5 99 F . Su pp . 2 d at 30 4. F or

su bs tanti a lly

the same
re a so ns g ive n b y

the Di str ic t Co ur

t, w e a ff ir m, a nd ho ld t hat th e va lid atio n n oti c e is oversha dowed whe re a

debt collec tor serve s a consumer with proce ss initi atinga lawsuit during the validation per iod, without clarifying that commence ment of the law suit has no effe ct on the information conve y ed in the validation notice. We wr ite principally to expl ain how debt collector s can a

void running afoul of § 1692gin the future. Def endants did not have to serve E llis during the va lidation period; they could have waited until the validation per iod expi red. It is difficult to discern what tactical a dvantag e wa s g ained by commencinga lawsuit whe n the validation per iod had only two wee ks to run, espec ially since the r eturn date on the summons was not until mi d J uly – a full month after

the validation period e x pired. Of course , debt collec tors may continue collec tion activities, including commencinglitigation, duringthe validation per iod; but in doi ngso the debt collec tor must not transg ress § 1692g (b)’ s proscription of c ollections activities that “over shadow or . . . [are ] inconsistent with” the validation notice.12

I f t he de bt c oll e c tor

c ho os e s n ot t o w a it unti l th e e nd of the va lid atio n p e ri od

to
c o m m e n c e d e b tc o l l e c t i o nl i t i g at i o n , ane x p l an at i o no f th e l aw s u i t ’ s i mp a c t–

o r m o r e a c c ur at e l y, la c k o f i mpa c t – o n th e dis c los ur e s ma de in t he va lid atio n n oti c e mus t be pr ov ide d. Th is
e xplanatio n s ho uld

be se t f or th i n e ith e r t

he va lid atio n n oti c e its e lf , o r i n a no tic e pr ov ide d w ith the summons and complaint. The be st practice is to provide an explanation in both the validation notice and the summons and complaint. Clarifying tha t commence ment of a la

wsuit does not trump the validation notice will come at litt le or no c ost to debt collectors a nd will ensure that the
consumer r ights sec ured unde r the F DCPA are not ove rshadowe d or contra dicted. CO NC LU SION For the re asons set for

th above, the judg ment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.