Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190530_0000269.MGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 11:16:30
Document Index: 344367829

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1692', '§ 1692']

FindACase™ | Urquhart v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc
Urquhart v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc
MARY URQUHART, Plaintiff,
CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC. d/b/a CHASE RECEIVABLES, Defendant.
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Plaintiff Mary Urquhart incurred a consumer debt for some unspecified purpose. See [Doc. 1, at ¶ 19]. She defaulted on this debt and her creditor transferred it to Defendant Credit Bureau of Napa County for collection. See [Id. at ¶¶ 21 & 22]. Defendant then sent Plaintiff a collection letter with the following language in compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a):
[Doc. 1, at ¶ 25]. So far so good. The trouble starts-at least in Plaintiff's view-right after this paragraph, where Defendant goes on to state that:
If you would like to submit a dispute you can call us at 877- 256-2510 or send it by mail to:
SONOMA CA 95476-7503
[Id.] (formatting in original). Plaintiff believes that the letter's “submit a dispute statement overshadows the notice provided pursuant to [§] 1692g” because it “has the propensity to cause unsophisticated consumers . . . to call with a dispute rather than properly mailing a written dispute.” [Id. at ¶¶ 28 & 29]. Consequently, Plaintiff initiated this action, alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (hereinafter “FDCPA”); the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.; and the Georgia Unfair or Deceptive Practices Toward the Elderly Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-850 et seq. See [Id. at ¶¶ 24-54]. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Complaint by filing the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 9] in which it challenges Plaintiff's assertion that the “submit a dispute” statement overshadowed the letter's 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notice. The Court agrees with Defendant that the “submit a dispute” statement did not overshadow the letter's § 1692g notice; therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 9] and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] with prejudice.
“After the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court reviews a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the same way it reviews a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, 904 F.3d 1197, 1207 (11th Cir. 2018) (“The standards for reviewing decisions on motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are the same: whether the count stated a claim for relief.”) (internal quotations omitted). Consequently, the Court will grant a defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings if the facts a plaintiff alleges cannot support a claim for relief. See Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2002).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The facts in this case are not really in dispute. Instead, the dispute here centers on whether the &ldquo;submit a dispute&rdquo; statement in Defendant&#39;s collection letter, as a matter of law, &ldquo;overshadowed&rdquo; the &sect; 1692g(a) notice provided in the same letter. The Court finds that it did not. Under &sect; 1692g(a), a debt collector must, within five days of the &ldquo;initial communication&rdquo; with a debtor, send a written notice to the debtor regarding various rights she has to verify and dispute the amount owed. See 15 U.S.C. &sect; 1692g(a). Following, this notice, a debt collector may not, for thirty days, engage in any &ldquo;collection activity&rdquo; or &ldquo;communication&rdquo; that &ldquo;overshadows or [is] inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer&#39;s right[s]&rdquo; under &sect; 1692g(a). 15 U.S.C. &sect; 1692g(b). To determine whether a communication or collection activity overshadows the debt collector&#39;s &sect; 1692g(a) notice, the Court applies the &ldquo;least sophisticated consumer&rdquo; standard. See Jeter v. Credit Bureau,Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1177 n.11 (11th Cir. 1985). Applying the “least sophisticated consumer” standard, ...