Opinion ID: 2680617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McLaughlin’s Appeal1

Text: In October 2005, Timothy McLaughlin executed a $325,000 adjustable rate note in favor of CitiMortgage, secured by a mortgage on his home. McLaughlin fell behind on his mortgage payments due to an error on CitiMortgage’s part. In 2010, CitiMortgage referred McLaughlin’s account to PHS. PHS sent him a letter (the “Letter”) dated June 7, 2010, that stated that “[t]he amount of the debt as of 05/18/2010” was $365,488.40. App. 73. This included two line items relevant here: $650 in “Attorney’s Fees” and $550 for “Costs of Suit and Title Search.” App. 54-55, 73-74. McLaughlin asserts, among other things, that these fees and costs had not actually been incurred as of the date stated in the Letter. Rather than seek verification of the debt from PHS, McLaughlin filed a putative class action complaint alleging that PHS violated several sections of the FDCPA by, among other things,2 falsely representing that PHS had performed legal services on or before May 18, 2010. The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that McLaughlin could not bring suit challenging the information contained in the Letter without having first disputed the validity of the debt pursuant to the FDCPA’s validation procedure.3 1 Because McLaughlin only appeals the dismissal of his claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the facts are drawn from McLaughlin’s First Amended Complaint. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating we “accept all factual allegations as true” in reviewing the dismissal of a complaint) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 McLaughlin also alleged that the Letter gave the impression that attorneys had been involved in the debt collection activities. This claim was resolved in favor of PHS at summary judgment and McLaughlin does not appeal that ruling. 3 Under the FDCPA, a debt collector who sends a notice concerning a debt must include “the amount of the debt” and “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is 3 After McLaughlin filed an amended complaint, the District Court issued another opinion, again stating that McLaughlin was required “to follow the debt validation procedure required by section 1692g” and that “the amended complaint fail[ed] to allege that” he had done so. App. 15253. The District Court also found that the fees in the Letter were estimates and held that “estimating the amount of attorneys’ fees in an itemized debt collection notice does not violate the FDCPA.” App. 152-53. For these reasons, the District Court dismissed McLaughlin’s claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2) and (10)4,5 that alleged misrepresentations concerning the amount of the debt and the fees for services associated with its collection. McLaughlin appeals this ruling.