United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12) is pending
before the Court. In its supporting brief, Defendant contends
it is entitled to judgment in its favor on Plaintiff's
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
action because Plaintiff's theory of the case is not
tenable. (Doc. 12-1 at 1.) Specifically, Defendant maintains
that it correctly stated the amount due on the account as of
the date of its letter to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
theory that the actual amount claimed on the debt should have
been less because a partial refund would eventually be
received by the creditor at a later date is without merit.
(Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court
concludes Defendant's motion is properly denied.
January 2015, Plaintiff purchased a vehicle on credit and the
purchase money loan (“the Account”) is a
“debt” as the term is defined in the FDCPA, 15
U.S.C. § 1925a(5). (Doc. 1 ¶ 10.) The original
lender sold the Account to Hyundai Motor Finance
(“Hyundai”), and Hyundai identified the Account
by a number ending in 4849. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Plaintiff stopped making payments and Hyundai declared a
default and repossessed the vehicle. (Id. ¶
12.) The balance of the Account at the time was $22, 878.56.
(Id. § 13.) After Hyundai sold the vehicle, the
deficiency balance was $13, 377.23. (Id. ¶ 14.)
November 1, 2016, Hyundai referred the Account to Defendant
Constar for collection. (Id. ¶ 15.) Eight days
later, Hyundai reviewed the Account and determined that the
balance reported to Defendant had been overstated by $1,
820.67 because the deficiency calculated did not address
three refunds Hyndai was entitled to receive: $1, 123.50 for
an extended warranty; $519.55 for gap insurance; and $177.62
for a product related to the vehicle's tires.
(Id. ¶¶ 16, 17.)
letter which was an attempt to collect a debt from Defendant
Constar to Plaintiff dated December 11, 2016, the
“Total Due” was stated to be $13, 377.23.
(Id. ¶¶ 21, 23, 24; Doc. 1-2 at 2.)
received the credit by January 23, 2017. (Id. ¶
26.) Defendant Constar held the Account for collection until
March 17, 2017, and did not take action to change the
information it had provided to Plaintiff. (Id.
Complaint filed on December 11, 2017, Plaintiff avers that
Defendant violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)
and (10), and § 1692g(a)(1). (Id. ¶ 28.)
motion for judgment on the pleadings based on a defense that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim is analyzed under the
same standards that apply to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”
Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir.
2000). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings should
be granted if the movant establishes that ‘there are no
material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.'” Zimmerman v. Corbett, 873
F.3d 414, 417 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Sikirica v.
Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005)).
“In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
a court must accept all of the allegations in the pleadings
of the party against whom the motion is addressed as true and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party.” Zimmerman, 873 F.3d at 417-18.
contends it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because
it correctly stated the amount due ($13, 377.23) in the
December 11, 2016, letter to Plaintiff. (Doc. 12-1 at 3.)
Noting that each purported violation of the FDCPA is premised
on the alleged false amount claimed (id.), Defendant
elaborates that Plaintiff's own timeline shows that
Defendant correctly stated the amount due on the Account at
the time the letter was sent in that Hyundai did not receive
a partial refund of the amount due on the Account until
January 23, 2017. (Doc. 12-1 at 4.) Alternatively, Defendant
argues that even if the amount stated on the letter was
incorrect, it is entitled to ...