* nov 2 7 2017

20
IN CLERK'S OFFICE US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. * NOV 27 2017 ^ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN OFFICE X BLIMA KRAUS, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Consumers, against - Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 17-CV-3402 PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., Defendant. X GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge: Plaintiff Blima Kraus ("Kraus") brings this putative class action against Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc. ("PBCM")» alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection PracticesAct ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § \692 etseq. Before the Court is PBCM's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Kraus's claim is essentially as follows: She alleges that PBCM's June 6,2016 letterto her (the"Letter"),whichtransmitted an offerto settle her debtfor 40% of her accountbalance, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692ebecause it listed her account balance but did not indicate that the account balance might increase due to interest or other charges. Section 1692e prohibits the use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt," including "[t]he false representation of. . . the character, amount, or legal status of any debt." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A). In Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC^ the Second Circuit held that a debt collector violates § 1692e if it notifies a consumer of his or her account balance but fails to disclose that the consumer's balance may increase due to interest and fees. See 817 F.3d 72, 76-77 (2d Cir. 2016). But Avila also provides a safe harbor for a debt collector who "fail[s] to disclose that the consumer's balance may increase due to interest and fees" but Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 91

Upload: others

Post on 16-Oct-2021

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: * NOV 2 7 2017

IN CLERK'S OFFICEUS DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

* NOV 2 7 2017 ^UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN OFFICEX

BLIMA KRAUS, On Behalf of Herself andAll Other Similarly Situated Consumers,

against -

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER17-CV-3402

PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF

COLLECTIONS OF MARYLAND, INC.,

Defendant.X

GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Blima Kraus ("Kraus") brings this putative class action against Professional

Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc. ("PBCM")» alleging violations of the Fair DebtCollection

PracticesAct ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § \692 etseq. Beforethe Court is PBCM's motion to dismiss

the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Kraus's claim is essentially as follows: Sheallegesthat PBCM's June 6,2016 letterto her

(the"Letter"),whichtransmitted an offerto settleherdebtfor 40%of her accountbalance, violated

15 U.S.C. § 1692e because it listed her account balance but did not indicate that the account

balance might increase due to interest or othercharges. Section 1692e prohibits the use of "any

false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any

debt," including "[t]he false representation of. . . the character, amount, or legal status of any

debt." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A). In Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC^ the Second

Circuit held that a debt collector violates § 1692e if it notifies a consumer of his or her account

balance but fails to disclose that the consumer's balance may increase due to interest and fees. See

817 F.3d 72, 76-77 (2d Cir. 2016). But Avilaalso providesa safe harbor for a debt collectorwho

"fail[s] to disclose that the consumer's balance may increase due to interest and fees" but

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 91

Page 2: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 92

Page 3: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 93

Page 4: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 94

Page 5: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 95

Page 6: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 96

Page 7: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 97

Page 8: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 98

Page 9: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 99

Page 10: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 100

Page 11: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 101

Page 12: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 102

Page 13: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 103

Page 14: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 104

Page 15: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 105

Page 16: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 106

Page 17: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 107

Page 18: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 108

Page 19: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 109

Page 20: * NOV 2 7 2017

Case 1:17-cv-03402-ILG-RML Document 16 Filed 11/27/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 110