Scheffler v. Alltran Financial, LP

Background

Troy K. Scheffler, proceeding without a lawyer, objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that Alltran Financial, LP’s motion to dismiss be granted and that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The dispute concerned voicemails that included the caller’s name, the debt-collection company’s name, a statement that the call was from a debt collector, and a callback number.

Scheffler asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Minnesota Statute § 323.37. He argued that the magistrate judge improperly relied on a prior decision, that the voicemail was a communication, and that Minnesota Statute § 323.37 allowed a private lawsuit because Alltran did not recite its name on the voicemail.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted a fresh review of the record and Scheffler’s objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). It found no reason to depart from the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The court adopted the recommendation’s conclusions that:

- The voicemails were not “communications” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because they contained only the caller’s name, the debt collector’s name, the fact that the call was from a debt collector, and a callback number. - Minnesota Statute § 323.37 did not provide a private right of action. - The claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14), based on Alltran’s failure to include “LP” in its name, failed because that omission could not reasonably be viewed as materially deceptive, misleading, or unfair, even to an unsophisticated consumer. - The claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b), based on leaving voicemails on Scheffler’s cellphone, failed because the voicemails were not third-party communications prohibited by that statute.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted the August 13, 2018 Report and Recommendation, granted Alltran Financial, LP’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Scheffler’s complaint without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.