Opinion ID: 3002687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R.S., supra, 74 F.3d at 35.

Text: Yet we do not think that the present case is so clear as to entitle the plaintiffs to summary judgment. Unlike previous cases, the confusing statement did not appear No. 07-3581 13 in or adjacent to the notice of the plaintiffs’ right to challenge the debt, and it was not, as in most of those cases, a flat-out contradiction of anything in the letter, though this depends on just what an unsophisticated consumer would understand it to mean. The focus in the district court, moreover, was on the survey evidence and on whether the challenged sentence in the defendant’s letter was literally false. With those issues out of the way, the district judge and the parties can focus on the critical issue, which is that of confusion. Perhaps the defendant can explain why the sentence was included and justify the inclusion. He should be asked to do so, because there is enough indication of confusion to place a burden of production on the defendant. The grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and the dismissal of the suit, based upon that grant) was premature and is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A FFIRMED IN P ART, R EVERSED IN P ART, AND R EMANDED . 3-10-09