Source: http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180327_0000473.EWI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:31:16+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Derosia v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc.
Derosia v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc.
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC d/b/a TASMAN CREDIT CORP, Defendant.
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Denise Derosia filed this lawsuit against defendant Credit Corp. Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Tasman Credit Corp (Tasman), alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA). (ECF No. 1.) Both parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 8.) Tasman moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and under Rule 12(b)(1) for failure to plead standing. (ECF No. 12.) The parties have fully briefed the motion, which is ready for resolution.
“To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must provide enough factual information to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' and ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'“ Thulin v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., 771 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Accepting as true all well-pleaded facts, the court determines whether they give rise to an entitlement of relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
The FDCPA prohibits the use of any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” Boucher v. Finance System of Green Bay, Inc., 880 F.3d 362, 366 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692e). The FDCPA also prohibits the “use or distribution of any written communication … which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9).
To state a claim under § 1692e Derosia must plausibly allege that the Notice would materially mislead or confuse an unsophisticated consumer. See Boucher, 880 F.3d at 366. “Because this inquiry involves a fact-bound determination of how an unsophisticated consumer would perceive the statement, dismissal is only appropriate in cases involving statements that plainly, on their face, are not misleading or deceptive.” Id. (citing Marquez v. Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., 836 F.3d 808, 812, 814-15 (7th Cir. 2016)). When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court “must tread carefully before holding that a letter is not confusing as a matter of law” because “district judges are not good proxies for the ‘unsophisticated consumer' whose interest the statute protects.” Boucher, 880 F.3d at 367 (citing McMillan v. Collection Prof'ls., Inc., 455 F.3d 754, 759 (7th Cir. 2006)). The unsophisticated consumer is considered uninformed, naive, or trusting, but nonetheless deemed to possess rudimentary knowledge about the financial world and capable of making basic logical deductions. Durkin v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1692
 § 1692
 § 1692
 v. 
 v. 
 v.