Opinion ID: 760362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary judgment on FDCPA claim

Text: 19 When an independent debt collector solicits payment from a consumer, it must--within five days of the initial communication--provide the consumer with a detailed validation notice which includes the following information: 20 (1) the amount of the debt; 21 (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; 22 (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; 23 (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and 24 (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. 25 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a). When determining whether Section 1962g has been violated, courts use an objective standard, measured by how the 'least sophisticated consumer' would interpret the notice received from the debt collector. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir.1996) (citing, inter alia, Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1318 (2d Cir.1993)). When a notice contains language that 'overshadows or contradicts' other language informing a consumer of her rights, it violates the Act. Id. (citing Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 111 (3d Cir.1991)). [T]he juxtaposition of two inconsistent statements renders the notice invalid under § 1692g. Id. A debt collection notice is overshadowing or contradictory if it fails to convey the validation information clearly and effectively and thereby makes the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights. See id. at 35. 26 The district court concluded that CCI's claim that the hospital demands immediate payment contradicted the validation notice on the reverse. Savino, 960 F.Supp. at 604. CCI argues that the district court erred in failing to construe the language in its proper context as part of a larger sentence that read, The hospital insists on immediate payment or a valid reason for your failure to make payment  (emphasis added). CCI argues that because this sentence allowed the consumer to tender a reasonable excuse as an alternative to immediate payment, the notice did not violate the statute. 27 In light of this Court's precedent, including Russell, we conclude that CCI's payment notice violates the FDCPA because the language on the front of the notice, when read in conjunction with the statutory debt validation on the reverse side, would make the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to her rights. See Russell, 74 F.3d at 35. 2 In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that CCI's request for immediate payment did not, standing alone, violate the FDCPA. Rather, CCI's violation of the Act consisted of its decision to ask for immediate payment without also explaining that its demand did not override the consumer's rights under Section 1962g to seek validation of the debt. CCI could have both sought immediate payment and complied with the Act simply by inserting into the text of its letter transitional language that referred the addressee to the validation notice. For example, CCI might have added one of the following paragraphs to its demand letter: 28 Although we have requested that you make immediate payment or provide a valid reason for nonpayment, you still have the right to make a written request, within thirty days of your receipt of this notice, for more information about the debt. Your rights are described on the reverse side of this notice. 29 Our demand for immediate payment does not eliminate your right to dispute this debt within thirty days of receipt of this notice. If you choose to do so, we are required by law to cease our collection efforts until we have mailed that information to you. Your rights are described on the reverse side of this notice. 30 In our view, the inclusion of this or similar language would effectively inform a consumer as to his or her rights under the FDCPA without imposing an undue burden on a debt collector's legitimate efforts to obtain the prompt payment of debts. 31 CCI further argues that even if the notice violated the statute, the fact that Savino denied receipt of the August 14, 1995, letter precludes a finding in his favor because a consumer's receipt of a collection letter is an absolute prerequisite to a claim for damages under the FDCPA. Savino contends that because the FDCPA is a strict liability statute, his receipt of the letter is not a necessary predicate to a finding of liability. We need not resolve this issue because Savino acknowledged, albeit belatedly, receipt of the August 14 letter. 32