Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170324_0000398.SIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 17:38:19
Document Index: 417085806

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

| Shields v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.
Shields v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.
DEAN SHIELDS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,v.J.C. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. a Minnesota corporation, LVNV FUNDING, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Motions to Dismiss [Docket
Nos. 21 and 24] filed by Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC
(“LVNV”) and J.C. Christensen & Associates
(“JCC”) on August 12, 2016 and August 15, 2016,
respectively, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Plaintiff, Dean Shields, filed this lawsuit on
behalf of himself and a putative class of plaintiffs,
alleging that Defendants' form collection letter violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),
15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. For the reasons
detailed below, we DENY Defendants' Motions to
than seven years ago, Mr. Shields incurred an outstanding
financial obligation for an HSBC Bank credit card. Defendant
LVNV subsequently acquired Mr. Shields's debt and the
debt was then placed with Defendant JCC for collection. In an
effort to collect on the delinquent account, JCC sent Mr.
Shields a letter dated April 8, 2016, explaining that his
debt had been purchased by LVNV and placed with JCC for
collection. The letter states that JCC was “authorized
to negotiate GENEROUS SETTLEMENT TERMS” on the account
and references multiple ways in which Mr. Shields could
“settle [his] account.” Exh. C to Compl. The
letter also provides that: “The law limits how long you
can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, LVNV
Funding LLC will not sue you for it, and LVNV Funding LLC
will not report it to any credit reporting agency.”
Id. There is no further information in the letter
regarding time-barred debts, including the consequences of
making a partial payment on a time-barred debt.
Shields filed this putative class action on June 22, 2016,
alleging that Defendants' collection letter violated
§§ 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA by repeatedly
encouraging the debtor to “settle your account”
and failing to inform the debtor that, because of the
applicable statute of limitations, neither LVNV nor JCC could
legally sue to collect the debt. Mr. Shields further alleges
that Defendants' statement attempting to collect a
time-barred debt was also unfair and unconscionable in
violation of § 1692f of the FDCPA.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of
claims for “failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In this
procedural context, the Court must accept as true all
well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and draw all
ensuing inferences in favor of the non-movant. Lake v.
Neal, 585 F.3d 1059, 1060 (7th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless,
the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of
what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,
” and its “[f]actual allegations must . . . raise
a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Pisciotta v. Old Nat'l Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629,
633 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). The complaint
therefore must include “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Stated otherwise, a facially
plausible complaint is one which permits “the court to
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
FDCPA Standards
FDCPA aims at remedying the use of “abusive, deceptive,
and unfair debt collection practices, ” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692(a), and prohibits the use of “any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692e. Section 1692e of the FDCPA sets forth a
nonexhaustive list of prohibited practices, including making
a false representation of the character, amount, or legal
status of any debt, § 1692e(2)(A). Section 1692(f) of
the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using “unfair
or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any
determining whether the contents of a debt collector's
communication with a debtor are “false or
misleading” under §§ 1692e and 1692f of the
FDCPA, the Seventh Circuit has directed district courts to
view them from the point of view of an “unsophisticated
consumer”-one who is “uninformed, naive, or
trusting, ” albeit not a “dimwit.” Wahl
v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 556 F.3d 643, 645 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“The ‘unsophisticated consumer'
isn't a dimwit. She may be ‘uninformed, naive,
[and] trusting, ' but she has ‘rudimentary
knowledge about the financial world.'”) (further
citations omitted). A plaintiff cannot successfully plead a
violation of the statute, however, simply by pointing to some
formal, but immaterial mistake in the debt collector's
form of communication. “A statement cannot mislead
unless it is material, so a false but non-material statement
is not actionable.” Hahn v. Triumph P'ships
LLC, 557 F.3d 755, 758 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing
Wahl, 556 F.3d at 646).
particular notice affects its intended audience “is a
question of fact.” See Walker v. Nat'l
Recovery, Inc., 200 F.3d 500, 501 (7th Cir. 1999);
Headen v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 383 F.Supp.2d 1097,
1102 (S.D. Ind. 2005). Dismissal is appropriate only when
“it is ‘apparent from a reading of the letter
that not even a significant fraction of the population would
be misled by it.'” Zemeckis v. Global Credit
& Collection Corp., 679 F.3d 632, 636 (7th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Taylor v. Cavalry Inv., L.L.C.,
365 F.3d 572, 574 (7th Cir. 2004)).
argues that the letter he received from Defendants is
violative of the FDCPA because it falsely and/or misleadingly
represented the legal status of the debt, in violation of
§ 1692(e) and § 1692(f) of the FDCPA, by: (1)
implying that LVNV is merely choosing not to sue or credit
report rather than representing that it is legally prohibited
from doing so; (2) failing to state that, in addition to
LVNV, JCC as the debt collector is also legally prohibited
from suing on or credit-reporting the time-barred debt; and
(3) failing to inform Plaintiff that ...