Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, Judge Abrams dismissed the federal debt-collection claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Arthur Raymond’s federal debt-collection claims against Arcadia were dismissed with prejudice, and his New York state-law claims against the defendants were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
What happened
In Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, Arthur Raymond alleged that Arcadia, collecting a $126.67 medical debt for Weill Cornell, improperly contacted him directly after his lawyers had disputed the debt and asked that he not be contacted directly.
The court found that Raymond’s second amended complaint still did not provide specific facts showing that Arcadia actually knew he was represented by lawyers. Because that missing allegation was necessary for his federal debt-collection claims, the court dismissed those claims. The court also declined to decide Raymond’s New York claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The detailed version
- Raymond v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05295
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Arthur Raymond sued Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, and Cornell University, also known as Weill Cornell Medical College. He asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), New York General Business Law § 349, and negligence.
Raymond received medical services from Weill Cornell and later received an invoice for $126.67. He disputed the debt through his lawyers at Fagenson & Puglisi and asked Weill Cornell not to contact him directly. Arcadia, which Weill Cornell hired to collect the debt, later sent Raymond a collection letter directly.
Federal claims
Raymond claimed that Arcadia violated FDCPA § 1692c(a)(2), which generally bars a debt collector from communicating directly with a consumer when the collector knows the consumer is represented by a lawyer concerning the debt. He also invoked § 1692e, which generally prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading conduct in debt collection.
The court had previously dismissed these claims because Raymond had not adequately alleged that Arcadia actually knew he was represented. The second amended complaint repeated that assertion and added wording that Weill Cornell had given Arcadia information about his representation. The court found that the complaint still included no specific facts supporting a reasonable inference that Arcadia had obtained that knowledge. The court therefore dismissed both FDCPA claims. The opinion states that Raymond’s FDCPA claims were asserted only against Arcadia; Weill Cornell, as the creditor, was not liable under the FDCPA.
State-law claims and disposition
Raymond also asserted New York claims for deceptive consumer practices and negligence. After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the case. The federal claims were dismissed with prejudice. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.