Daggett v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC

Background

Melissa Daggett alleged that she incurred a consumer debt to Commerce Bank before February 2022. Commerce Bank hired Radius Global Solutions, LLC, to collect the debt. Radius sent Daggett a collection letter in February 2022 and another substantially identical letter in August 2022. Both letters identified Commerce Bank, the account number ending in 2619, and the debt amount as $4,865.08. Both also explained how Daggett could dispute the debt or request the original creditor’s name and address.

The letters used different internal Radius reference numbers and personal identification numbers for online payments. Daggett alleged that this difference violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). She claimed violations based on allegedly false or deceptive representations, unfair or unconscionable collection methods, and failure to clearly identify the account and reference number. She sued individually and on behalf of a proposed class.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Radius’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) under the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Under that standard, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Daggett’s favor, but it did not accept unsupported legal conclusions. The complaint had to allege enough facts to make relief plausible rather than merely possible.

The court applied the FDCPA’s objective “unsophisticated consumer” standard. It held that Daggett’s personal confusion about the different internal reference numbers was not enough because the question was whether an objectively unsophisticated consumer would be misled.

The court concluded that the different internal reference number and personal identification number could not plausibly make a consumer think the two letters concerned different debts. The letters provided the same account number, creditor information, and debt amount, and Daggett did not claim that those debt details were inaccurate. The court held that the internal reference number was not a representation about the debt’s character, amount, or legal status and was not a false or deceptive means of collection under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) or § 1692e(10).

The court also held that using different internal numbers and a personal identification number was not an unfair or unconscionable collection method under § 1692f. It further held that § 1692g, which lists information required in written debt-collection notices, does not require a debt collector’s internal reference number; the relevant account number was included in both letters.

The court declined Radius’s request to take judicial notice of the complaint, its exhibits, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s model forms, without prejudice. The court stated that the request was unnecessary or unwarranted at that stage and that the forms were not relevant to the dispute.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.