Judge Arthur Spatt
Residential Credit Solutions’ (RCS) validation notice claimed Diaz owed $370,430 in mortgage debt. Diaz stated a plausible claim for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (FDCPA) violation. Applying the reasoning from In re Risk Mgmt. Alternatives Inc. Fair Debt Collection Practices Litig., the court found that RCS’s validation notice could confuse the least sophisticated consumer into believing that a writing was the only permissible method of disputing the debt. Discussing Ong v. American Collections Enter. Inc. and In re Risk Mgmt., the court held that FDCPA §1692g(3) "permits disputes to be raised otherwise than in writing." On Diaz’s claim that RCS’s validation notice wrongly stated that "If no notice is received by RCS within the 30 day period, it will be assumed that the above information is accurate and the debt is valid" the court observed that §1692g(a)(3) requires that a validation notice specifically include "a statement that unless the consumer within 30 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." The absence of the term "by the debt collector" or its equivalent, sufficiently alleges the FDCPA’s violation to survive dismissal.
