Kahn v. D & A Services, LLC

Background

Levi Kahn brought a proposed class action against D&A Services, LLC and John Does 1–25 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Kahn alleged that D&A sent him a March 9, 2020 debt-collection letter stating that he owed $7,628.70 to Bank of America, N.A. He claimed that the letter violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(10) and 1692g(b).

The challenged sentence stated: “If you dispute the debt, or any part thereof, or request the name and address of the original creditor in writing within the thirty-day period, the law requires our firm to suspend our efforts to collect the debt until we mail the requested information to you.” Kahn argued that the words “in writing” applied only to a request for the original creditor’s name and address, making the sentence misleading about whether an oral debt dispute would require D&A to stop collection efforts.

D&A filed two motions. One invoked Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and argued that Kahn lacked standing. The other invoked Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion. It explained that standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would address the injury.

The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that Sections 1692e and 1692g protect concrete interests. Because Kahn alleged violations of those provisions, the court held that he had standing to pursue the case.

FDCPA Claims

The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It evaluated the letter under the “least sophisticated consumer” standard, an objective test asking how a consumer who is uninformed or trusting but still reads the notice with basic care would understand it.

The court held that the letter had to be read in its entirety. Directly above the challenged sentence, the letter stated that a consumer must notify D&A “in writing” within 30 days to dispute the debt or request the original creditor’s name and address. The next sentence stated that D&A would suspend collection efforts if the consumer took either of those actions.

Because the letter clearly required both a debt dispute and a request for the original creditor’s information to be made in writing, the court concluded that Kahn had not plausibly alleged a violation of Section 1692g(b). For the same reason, the court concluded that the letter was not false, deceptive, or misleading under Section 1692e(10). The court also rejected Kahn’s argument that the sentence had a reasonable but inaccurate alternative interpretation.

Disposition

The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion and granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It stated that both FDCPA claims must be dismissed, instructed the Clerk to terminate the motions, and directed the Clerk to close the case.