District Judge Arthur D. Spatt

Read Full-Text Decision

Abramov alleged I.C. System Inc.’s (ICS) May 26 debt collection letter violated 15 USC §§1692e and 1692g. District court rejected Abramov’s claim that ICS’s Aug. 28, 2014, Rule 68 Offer of Judgment in the amount of $1,501—subsequently withdrawn by its own terms—mooted its Aug. 19 motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Applying the objective “least sophisticated consumer” standard, district court further determined that, on his claims under §§1692e and 1692g, Abramov could advance a theory that the second paragraph of ICS’s Letter “overshadowed” or “contradicted” the first sentence of the first paragraph, or was “misleading” as to that sentence on the basis that the language “in writing” in that paragraph leaves a consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a debt requires oral or written communication. However, as a matter of law, Abramov could not proceed on a theory that the Letter’s second paragraph was similarly overshadowing contradictory or misleading as to that paragraph on the basis that the directive to call the creditor in the event of suspected identity theft leaves the consumer debtor unsure as to whether disputing a debt requires contacting the debt collector or the creditor.