Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Connor v. Unifund CCR, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 27, 2019

VERONICA CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.
UNIFUND CCR, LLC

          MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

          Baylson, J.

         This putative class action involves alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692g, by Defendant Unifund CCR, LLC in sending a debt collection letter containing misleading and deceptive language to Plaintiff Veronica Connor and members of the putative class. Unifund now moves to dismiss both claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF 3).

         For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

         I.

         Factual and Procedural History

         Taking Connor's allegations as true from her Class Action Complaint (ECF 1, “Compl.” or “Complaint”), the facts are as follows. On January 21, 2019, Connor received a letter (ECF 1 at Ex. A, the “Letter”) from debt collector Unifund attempting to collect a debt allegedly owed to Comenity Capital Bank. (Compl. at ¶¶ 12-18). The Letter stated in relevant part:

You may contact this office to address this matter by calling 888-384-8171.
Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt…. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(Ex. A; Compl. at ¶¶ 21-22).[1]

         Connor alleges that she was harmed as a result of receiving the Letter because Unifund did not clearly advise her that she must dispute any alleged debt in writing, as required by the FDCPA. (Id. ¶¶ 23-25, 32-33). Connor further alleges that Unifund's actions “are part of a pattern and practice used to collect consumer debts.” (Id. ¶ 34). She thus asserts the following counts on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Pennsylvania consumers:

Count I: Violation of FDCPA § 1692e (prohibiting false and misleading statements).
Count II: Violation of FDCPA § 1692g (governing proper validation notices).

         The Complaint seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 6).

         Unifund moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on May 1, 2019. (ECF 3, “Mot.” or “Motion”; see also ECF 3-1, “Def.'s Br.”). Connor responded in opposition on May 15, 2019. (ECF 4, “Pl.'s Resp.”). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.