# LINNABARY v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · February 2, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419386

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 2, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419386

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding there is no informational injury where the plaintiff merely alleges that she received the information in the wrong format—not that she failed to receive the information
- finding sufficient verification where the debt collector sent a detailed statement explaining the charges underlying the debt
- applying the same standard to § 1692g
- finding no informational injury where the debtor disclosed the amount of debt owed

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTINA L. LINNABARY,

2:22-CV-01565-CCW
Plaintiff,

v.

SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

OPINION

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Christina L.
Linnabary, ECF No. 49, and Defendant Sequim Asset Solutions, LLC (“SAS”), ECF No. 46, as
well as supplemental briefing on Article III standing, ECF Nos. 61, 62.
Ms. Linnabary asserts that SAS, a debt collector, improperly attempted to collect a debt
and misrepresented the amount she owed, in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and several Pennsylvania state laws.1 See generally ECF No. 26.
Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 46, 49.
After a Court order requesting additional briefing on Article III standing, ECF No. 60, the parties
filed supplemental briefs both arguing that Ms. Linnabary had Article III standing to bring her
claims. ECF Nos. 61, 62.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court determines that Ms. Linnabary has standing to
bring two of her FDCPA claims but will REMAND her third claim for lack of standing.

1 Ms. Linnabary brings claims under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. § 2270.1, and the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1.
Additionally, the Court will GRANT SAS’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Ms.
Linnabary’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the two remaining FDCPA claims.
I. Background

On February 2, 2023, Ms. Linnabary filed an Amended Complaint against SAS, alleging
that SAS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Pennsylvania state law when it
attempted to collect a debt she allegedly owed.2 See generally ECF No. 26. Ms. Linnabary asserts
three FDCPA claims: first, that SAS violated § 1692e(2)(A) because it misrepresented the amount
of debt Ms. Linnabary owed; second, that SAS violated § 1692g(b) because it restarted collection
activity prior to sufficiently validating the debt; and third, that SAS violated § 1692f because it
sent its debt validation response to Ms. Linnabary’s secondary email address rather than her
primary email or via United States mail. ECF No. 26 ¶¶ 24–33.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
On January 27, 2022, Ms. Linnabary’s Verizon account was placed with SAS for
collection. ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 1; ECF No. 48 ¶ 1; ECF No. 46, Ex. E. SAS then sent Ms. Linnabary

a letter (the “Collection Letter”), dated January 28, 2022, requesting that she pay the debt. ECF
No. 46, Ex. D; ECF No. 48 ¶ 9. The Collection Letter identified SAS as the debt collector and
explained that the “total amount of the debt now” is $22.95. Id. The Collection Letter also stated
that as of October 17, 2021, Ms. Linnabary owed $271.34. Id. The Collection Letter further noted
that between October 17, 2021 and the date the letter was sent, Ms. Linnabary was charged $248.39
in interest, $0.00 in fees, and she paid or received credits of $0.00, for a total of $22.95. Id. The

2 On August 29, 2022, Ms. Linnabary initiated this case in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. On November 3, 2022, the case was removed to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. See generally ECF No. 1.
Collection Letter further informed Ms. Linnabary that she had until March 14, 2022 to dispute all
or part of the debt. Id.
On February 11, 2022, Ms. Linnabary sent an email to SAS, requesting that it verify the
debt. ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 2; ECF No. 48 ¶ 2; ECF No. 49, Ex. C. In her email (the “Verification

Request Email”), Ms. Linnabary noted that the Collection Letter said she owed $22.95 to Verizon,
but she contended that she had already closed and paid her Verizon account in full. ECF No. 49,
Ex. C. On February 12, 2022, Ms. Linnabary sent a letter via U.S. mail, also requesting debt
verification. ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 2; ECF No. 48 ¶ 2; ECF No. 49, Ex. B.
On April 22, 2022, SAS responded to Ms. Linnabary’s Verification Request Email with an
email (the “Verification Response Email”). ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 3; ECF No. 48 ¶¶ 3, 4. SAS sent its
Verification Response Email to an email address owned by Ms. Linnabary3—although it was a
different email address than Ms. Linnabary used to request the verification. ECF No. 48 ¶ 4; ECF
No. 49-4 ¶ 4.
SAS’ Verification Response Email stated that the final bill was $22.95. ECF No. 48 ¶ 9;

ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 6. It then advised that Ms. Linnabary may pay the debt online and that this email
“is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” ECF
No. 46, Ex. C; ECF No. 49, Ex. D. The email further noted that attached was a series of account
statements from Verizon which “include[d] detailed information.” ECF No. 46, Ex. C; ECF No.
48 ¶ 3; ECF No. 49, Ex. D; ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 5. The attached Verizon account statements showed

3 The parties have slightly different descriptions of the email address to which SAS sent its verification. Ms. Linnabary
describes it as “a secondary email address,” in her Concise Statement of Facts. ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 4. SAS avers in its
Concise Statement of Fact that it sent verification documents to an email address “Ms. Linnabary admits belongs to
her.” ECF No. 48 ¶ 4. The Court does not view this difference to be material, because even Ms. Linnabary’s
description acknowledges that the email address belonged to her, even if it was not, in her view, her primary email
address. And in any event, the Court deems Defendant’s version of this fact to be admitted, because Ms. Linnabary
failed to submit a Response to SAS’s Concise Statement of Facts. Per Local Rule 56, where a party does not file a
responsive concise statement of facts, the opposing party’s statement of facts are deemed admitted. Accordingly, the
Court will treat SAS’s description of this fact as admitted.
Ms. Linnabary’s monthly Verizon balance from May 2021 to September 2021, with an ending
balance of $271.34. ECF No. 46, Ex. C; ECF No. 49, Ex. D.
The parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment. SAS contends that it
correctly represented the amount of debt owed, sufficiently validated the debt prior to restarting

collecting activity, and properly responded to Ms. Linnabary’s validation requests by using an
email address she owned. ECF No. 46 at ¶¶ 2–4. Ms. Linnabary cross-moves for summary
judgment, countering that SAS misrepresented the amount of debt she owed, failed to properly
validate the debt, and used an unfair method of debt collection. ECF No. 49 at ¶¶ 5, 6.
II. Legal Standard

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish that “there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A factual dispute is ‘genuine’ if the ‘evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., 951
F.3d 137, 144 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
“A factual dispute is ‘material’ if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’”
Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” NAACP
v. N. Hudson Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 665 F.3d 464, 475 (3d Cir. 2011) (alteration omitted) (quoting
Matsushita Elect. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
The burden to establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact “remains
with ‘the moving party regardless of which party would have the burden of persuasion at trial.’”
Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996). Furthermore, “[i]f the
non-moving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, ‘the moving party may meet its burden
on summary judgment by showing that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to carry that
burden.’” Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 423 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wetzel v. Tucker,
139 F.3d 380, 383 n.2 (3d Cir. 1998)).
Once the moving party has carried its initial burden, the party opposing summary judgment

“must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586–87 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that “[w]here the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party,
there is no genuine issue for trial.”). Thus, while “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255,
“Rule 56(e) . . . requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings” and point to “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324
(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). But while the court must “view the facts in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor . .
. to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must present more than a

mere scintilla of evidence.” Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 425 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Instead, “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably
find for the non-movant.” Id. (cleaned up).
“Where, as here, cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, ‘the court must rule on each
party’s motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each side, whether a judgment
may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard.’” Reynolds v. Chesapeake & Del. Brewing
Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-2184, 2020 WL 2404904, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2020) (quoting
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388, 402 (3d Cir. 2016)).
III. Legal Analysis

The Court will first determine whether Ms. Linnabary has Article III standing for each of
her claims. The Court finds that Ms. Linnabary has Article III standing to bring two of her three
FDCPA claims, but that SAS is entitled to summary judgment on those claims.
A. Standing

1. Legal Standard
Both parties assert that Ms. Linnabary has Article III standing to bring this case. ECF Nos.
61, 62. A plaintiff has standing when she has suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct and capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61
(1992)); see also Kelly v. RealPage, Inc., 47 F.4th 202, 211 (3d Cir. 2022). “The party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [Article III standing].” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561;
Butela v. Midland Credit Manag., 341 F.R.D. 581, 588 (W.D. Pa. 2022) (Stickman, J.) (finding
that the defendant had the burden of establishing Article III standing because the defendant
invoked federal jurisdiction by removing the case from federal court).
To prove standing at the summary judgment stage, a party “can no longer rest on . . . mere
allegations, but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts establishing standing.”
Greenberg v. Lehocky, 81 F.4th 376, 384 (3d Cir. 2023); see also Sierra Club v. GenOn Power
Midwest LP, No. 19-1284, 2021 WL 4171748, at *5–6 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2021) (Stickman, J.)
(“At the summary judgment stage, the party with the burden of proving standing must show that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the standing elements.”); PennEnvironment, Inc. v.
U.S. Steel Corp., No. 19-484, 2022 WL 973706, at *10–12 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2022) (Hardy, J.)
(looking beyond the complaint to determine if standing existed at the summary judgment stage).
Here, SAS has the burden of proving Article III standing because it removed the case from
state court to federal court. See ECF No. 1. The standing doctrine, in Article III, section 2 of the
Constitution, limits the judicial power of the United States to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Susan
B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157 (2014). Thus, federal courts may “resolve only ‘a

real controversy with real impact on real persons.’” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413,
424 (2021) (quoting Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Assn., 139 S. Ct. 2067, 2103 (2019)). A “real
controversy” exists where the plaintiff (1) has suffered an “injury in fact,” (2) that is “fairly
traceable” to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and (3) is “likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338. If any of these elements is missing, then there is no
case or controversy, and the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–62.
The question here revolves around the injury-in-fact requirement. An injury-in-fact is the
“first and foremost of standing’s three elements.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 (cleaned up). To satisfy
this element, “a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected
interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical.’” Id. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Furthermore, regarding the concrete-
harm requirement, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury that bears a “close relationship to a
harm traditionally recognized as a providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”
TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 424 (internal quotations omitted). Some tangible harms, such as physical
injuries or monetary losses, “readily qualify as concrete injuries.” Id. at 425. Intangible harms
can also qualify as concrete injuries. Id. Generally, intangible harms must be closely related to
traditional harms, such as reputational harms, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon
seclusion, to qualify as concrete injuries under Article III. Id. Therefore, a party invoking federal
jurisdiction must show there is a “close historical or common-law analogue” to the harm, although
an “exact duplicate” is not required. Huber v. Simon’s Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132, 147–48 (3d Cir.
2023). Furthermore, not only must there be a statutory analogue, but the plaintiff’s harm must
bear “a sufficiently close relationship to the harm from [that common-law action].” Id. (emphasis
in original).

One type of intangible harm, an informational injury, is excepted from the requirement that
it be related to a traditionally recognized harm. Id. at 145. An informational injury exists where
the plaintiff was denied information to which she was legally entitled, and the denial caused
adverse consequences related to the purpose of the statute. Kelly, 47 F.4th at 212. To constitute
an informational injury, there must be an outright omission of information; unclear or ineffective
disclosures do not create an injury. Huber, 84 F.4th at 146 (finding no informational injury where
the debtor disclosed the amount of debt owed); see also TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 440–42 (finding
no informational injury where a credit reporting agency omitted certain required information in its
initial mailings to plaintiff but later sent the required information in a separate mailing).
2. Article III Standing Exists for Some, But Not All, of Ms. Linnabary’s
FDCPA Claims

Ms. Linnabary’s first FDCPA claim asserts that SAS violated § 1692e by misrepresenting
the amount of debt owed when they listed a debt of $22.95 but attached account statements
showing a higher balance. ECF No. 49-1 at 7–8. The Court agrees with the parties that Ms.
Linnabary has Article III standing for this claim. Courts have found that claims for misleading
communications under the FDCPA are related to the historical tort of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Huber, 84 F.4th at 148. But to establish standing, the mere showing of a deceptive or misleading
communication is insufficient; instead, there must be “some cognizable harm that flows from that
confusion.” Id. at 149. Such harm can include “physical, monetary, or cognizable intangible
harm” or “reputational or emotional harm.” Id. at 148. Here, in response to Ms. Linnabary’s
request for debt verification, SAS sent her an email stating she owes $22.95 but it attached account
statements showing a balance of $271.34. ECF No. 49-4 ¶¶ 3, 5, 6. In addition, Ms. Linnabary
testified that she experienced harm flowing from this communication, including failing to pay the
debt or take appropriate action, suffering from emotional distress, feeling extremely upset, fighting

with her spouse, losing time, and purchasing Tylenol. ECF No. 46, Ex. G at 35:23–41:18.
Furthermore, the harm from the Collection Letter is traceable to SAS’ conduct and would be
redressable by this Court’s decision. Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Linnabary has Article III
standing for her § 1692e FDCPA claim.
Ms. Linnabary’s second FDCPA claim asserts that SAS violated § 1692g because it
restarted collection activity in its Verification Response Email but failed to provide information
that sufficiently validated the debt. ECF No. 49-1 at 4–6. Ms. Linnabary contends that SAS did
not sufficiently validate the debt because the account statements they sent her did not contain
information showing she owed $22.95, instead the statements showed a total amount of $271.34.
ECF No. 49-1 at 4–5. The Court agrees with the parties that Ms. Linnabary has Article III standing

for this claim because the evidence before the Court is sufficient to establish an informational
injury. Ms. Linnabary requested validation of the debt, so she was legally entitled to receive
information that confirmed she owed $22.95. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (requiring debt collectors to
cease collection activity and to verify the debt if a consumer requests validation within thirty days
of receiving the collection notice). In response to her request, SAS sent an email stating that the
final amount owed was $22.95, but it attached account statements containing a total balance of
$271.34. ECF No. 48 ¶ 3; ECF No. 49-4 ¶¶ 3, 5, 6. Ms. Linnabary alleges that this information
was insufficient to validate the debt because it did not include an explanation of how her Verizon
account statements totaled $22.95. ECF No. 49-1 at 5. Because Ms. Linnabary believed the
validation was insufficient, she did not pay the debt or take other appropriate action while she
waited for proper validation. ECF No. 46, Ex. G at 35:35–42:1. Ms. Linnabary testified that while
waiting for proper validation, she suffered from emotional distress and a decrease in her credit
score. ECF No. 46, Ex. G at 40:18–41:7. Therefore, Ms. Linnabary has suffered an informational

injury because she was harmed when she allegedly did not receive information sufficient to verify
the debt. Finally, the alleged harm is fairly traceable to SAS’ conduct and redressable by this
Court’s decision. Therefore, Ms. Linnabary has Article III standing to bring her § 1692g claim.
Finally, Ms. Linnabary’s third FDCPA claim alleges that SAS violated § 1692f because it
engaged in unfair collection practices when it sent debt verification to an email Ms. Linnabary
owns but claims is a secondary email. ECF No. 49-1 at 6–7. The Court disagrees with the parties
and finds that Ms. Linnabary does not have Article III standing to bring this claim because she has
not suffered a concrete injury. An informational injury cannot exist where the plaintiff actually
received the information, even if the manner was allegedly confusing or ineffective. Huber, 84
F.4th at 145. Here, after Ms. Linnabary requested debt verification, SAS responded by email.

ECF No. 48 ¶ 4; ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 4. The email address SAS responded to is owned by Ms.
Linnabary but is different than the email address she used to request verification. ECF No. 48 ¶ 4;
ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 4. Ms. Linnabary contends that SAS was required to respond either by mail or by
the same email address she used to request verification. ECF No. 49-1 at 7. By using a different
email address, she asserts that SAS engaged in unfair collection practices in violation of § 1692f
because the manner in which she received the debt validation—through a secondary email—was
confusing. ECF No. 49-1 at 6–7. The Court concludes that no informational injury exists for this
claim because Ms. Linnabary is merely alleging that the way she received the debt verification—
through a secondary email—was confusing. See TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 441 (finding there is no
informational injury where the plaintiff merely alleges that she received the information in the
wrong format—not that she failed to receive the information). Further, under this claim, there is
no evidence that SAS’ use of Ms. Linnabary’s secondary email resulted in her not receiving the
requested verification information. Finally, traditional Article III standing does not exist; neither

party has pointed to a common-law historical analogue to the harm Ms. Linnabary alleges here.
See generally ECF Nos. 61, 62. Therefore, SAS, the party invoking federal jurisdiction, has failed
to show that Ms. Linnabary suffered a concrete injury when SAS sent debt validation to her
secondary email. Accordingly, Ms. Linnabary does not have standing to bring her § 1692f claim,
and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court will REMAND this claim.
B. SAS is Entitled to Summary Judgment on Remaining FDCPA Claims
Having determined that Article III standing exists for two of Ms. Linnabary’s FDCPA
claims, the Court now turns to the merits of those claims. In her Motion for Summary Judgment,
Ms. Linnabary contends that SAS violated the FDCPA because it misrepresented the amount owed
by attaching account statements with a higher total than the debt, and it restarted collection activity
in its Verification Response Email prior to adequately validating the debt. ECF No. 49-1 at 4–8.
In its Motion, SAS asserts that it accurately represented the amount owed and appropriately

validated the debt before restarting any collection activity. ECF No. 47 at 6–11.
1. Legal Standard
To succeed on her remaining FDCPA claims, Ms. Linnabary must establish that “(1) she
is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant’s challenged practice involves
an attempt to collect a ‘debt’ as the [FDCPA] defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a
provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.” Huber, 84 F.4th at 150 (quoting
Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299, 303 (3d Cir. 2014)). Only the fourth prong,
for purposes of the parties’ Motions, is disputed. See generally ECF Nos. 46, 49.
“Because the FDCPA is a remedial statute…we construe its language broadly, so as to
effect its purpose.” Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450, 453 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, “lender-debtor communications potentially giving rise to claims under the
FDCPA…[are] analyzed from the perspective of the least sophisticated debtor.” Id. at 454

(applying the least sophisticated debtor standard to a FDCPA claim under § 1692e); Wilson v.
Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2000) (applying the same standard to § 1692g).
“This standard ensures protection of all consumers, both gullible and shrewd.” Elnaggar v. Allard,
No. 22-2316, 2023 WL 3597381, at *2 (3d Cir. May 23, 2023); Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC,
882 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 2018). Applying this standard “requires more than ‘simply examining
whether particular language would deceive or mislead a reasonable debtor’ because a
communication that would not deceive or mislead a reasonable debtor might still deceive or
mislead the least sophisticated debtor.” Brown, 464 F.3d at 454 (quoting Quadramed, 225 F.3d at
354).
The least sophisticated debtor standard is objective, see Tatis, 882 F.3d at 427, and,

although it sets a lower bar than one based on a “reasonable debtor,” it nevertheless “preserves a
quotient of reasonableness and presumes a basic level of understanding and willingness to read
with care.” Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413, 418 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Rosenau v.
Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008)) (cleaned up). “Thus, although this standard
protects naive consumers, it also ‘prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of
collection notices.’” Quadramed, 225 F.3d at 354 (quoting United States v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., 98
F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 1996)). Finally, “[w]hether a collection letter violates the FDCPA is a
question of law.” Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C., 991 F.3d 466, 469 (3d Cir. 2021)
(analyzing alleged violations of Sections 1692(e) and (g)).
The Court will first address SAS’ Motion and will then turn to Ms. Linnabary’s Motion.
In addressing SAS’ Motion, the Court will view the facts in the light most favorable to Ms.
Linnabary, the non-moving party. See Burton, 707 F.3d at 425.
2. SAS Has Not Misrepresented the Amount of Debt that Ms. Linnabary
Owed under Section 1692(e)

SAS asserts that its initial Collection Letter, dated January 28, 2022, and Verification
Response Email, dated April 22, 2022, both correctly and clearly identified the amount of debt
Ms. Linnabary owed—$22.95. ECF No. 47 at 10; ECF No. 46, Exs. C, D. In response, Ms.
Linnabary contends that SAS misrepresented the debt owed because it attached account statements
with a balance of $271.34, making the amount owed misleading. ECF No. 52 at 8–9.
The FDCPA prohibits the use of “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
means in connection with the collection of any debt,” including “the false representation of the
character, amount, or legal status of any debt.” 15 U.S. § 1692e(2)(A). “[D]ebt collectors who
make demands for payments must accurately state the amount due in the Notice letter.” Muir v.
AM Solutions, LLC, No. 18-729, 2019 WL 3530521, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2019) (finding
plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a FDCPA claim that where the collection letter misrepresented the
amount owed based on the mortgage terms). A debt collector “misrepresents the amount of the
debt in violation of § 1692e(2)” when “the amount actually owed as of [the collection letter] date
was less than the amount listed.” McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, 756 F.3d 240,

246 (3d Cir. 2014).
SAS’ Collection Letter stated, “Total amount of the debt now: $22.95.” ECF No. 49, Ex.
B at 3; ECF No. 46, Ex. D at 1. Although the Collection Letter also listed a larger amount of
$271.34, it represented that this debt was owed as of October 17, 2021—approximately three
months prior. Id. Therefore, the Court finds that the least sophisticated debtor would understand
this Collection Letter to unambiguously represent that the total amount of debt owed is $22.95.
Compare Huber, 84 F.4th at 150–52 (holding that a collection letter would have misled the least
sophisticated debtor where the letter listed an “Amount” and “Various Other Accounts Total
Balance” making it unclear which stated amount was the amount owed) with Velez-Aguilar v.

Sequium Assest Solutions LLC Inc., No. 22-1109, 2023 WL 1793885, at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 7, 2023)
(affirming that the least sophisticated debtor would not have been misled where the collection
letter included only one numerical figure which stated the “Total Due”).
SAS’ Verification Email further confirmed a final bill of $22.95. ECF No. 46, Ex. C; ECF
No. 49, Ex. D. Although the Verification Email refers to additional amounts in the attached
account statements, see ECF No. 49-4 ¶ 6, the Court determines that because both the body of the
Collection Letter and Verification Email make clear that the amount due is $22.95, the least
sophisticated debtor would understand that to be the debt owed. Furthermore, neither the
Collection Letter nor the Verification Email states an amount owed to SAS higher than $22.95 nor
indicates an attempt to artificially inflate the amount owed. See Muir, 2019 WL 3530521, at *12

(analyzing only the collection letter itself to see if it accurately stated the amount owed); Martsolf
v. JBC Legal Group, P.C., No. 1:04-cv-1346, 2008 WL 275719, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2008)
(finding that the collection letters “do not artificially inflate either the amount of the debt or the
service fee, do not seek to collect any amounts extraneous to the debt. Therefore, the letters do
not misrepresent the amount due in violation of § 1692e(2)(A).”).
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT summary judgment on the § 1692e claim in favor of
SAS.
3. SAS Sufficiently Verified Ms. Linnabary’s Debt and Did Not Engage
in Improper Collection Activity under Section 1692g(b)

In its Motion, SAS contends that it did not violate § 1692g(b) because it sent sufficient
information to validate Ms. Linnabary’s debt in its Verification Response Email and did not restart
collection activity prior to that. ECF No. 46 at 7–9. Ms. Linnabary disagrees, asserting that the
Verification Response Email restarted collection activity by requesting payment of the debt and
listing different payment methods. ECF No. 49-1 at 4. Further, Ms. Linnabary maintains that SAS
insufficiently verified the debt because it claimed the debt owed was $22.95 but attached account
statements showing a total of $271.34. ECF No. 52 at 6–8.
Section 1692g states that if a debtor disputes the amount owed in writing, within 30 days
of receiving notice, then the debt collector “shall cease collection of the debt… until the debt
collector obtains verification of the debt…” 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Although § 1692g does not
explain what is required to verify a debt, district courts within our Circuit have held that “the
requirements are minimal.” Campbell v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 21-5388, 2022 WL 6172286,
at *7 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2022); Myers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 13-2455, 2014 WL
981311, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2014) (finding that debt verification “involves nothing more than
the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is
claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt . . .

There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the
debt.”).
Moreover, the Third Circuit has found sufficient verification where the debtor was
informed of “the amounts of [her] debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts
were incurred.” Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) overruled on other
grounds by Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2020); Jarzyna v. Home Properties,
L.P., 114 F.Supp.3d 243, 262–63 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (finding sufficient verification where the debt
collector sent a detailed statement explaining the charges underlying the debt); see also Campbell,
2022 WL 6172286, at *7 (finding sufficient debt verification where the debt collector provided an

account summary report showing the debt balance, the current account information, the dates on
which the debt occurred, and the debtor’s name and address).
Here, SAS informed Ms. Linnabary of the debt amount, services provided, and dates the
debts were incurred: SAS confirmed in the text of the Verification Email that the final amount of
Ms. Linnabary’s debt was $22.95, it attached account statements from Verizon showing that
cellphone plans were provided, and it listed unpaid monthly balances from May to September
2021. ECF No. 48 ¶¶ 3, 9; ECF No. 49-4 ¶¶ 3, 6; ECF No. 46, Ex. C. And although the Verizon
statements had a larger total balance, the Court finds that SAS sufficiently informed Ms. Linnabary
of the total debt she owed; it was not required to show detailed files of the debt, bills, or other
evidence. See Myers, 2014 WL 981311, at *5. Therefore, the Court finds that SAS sufficiently

validated the debt in its Verification Response Email, and to the extent that SAS’ Email restarted
collection activity, the Court finds it is immaterial because SAS had already provided sufficient
verification.
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT summary judgment on the § 1692g claim in favor of
SAS.
4. Ms. Linnabary’s Motion for Summary Judgment Will be Denied
The Court will now turn to Ms. Linnabary’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 49. Ms. Linnabary moved for summary judgment on the same legal issues as SAS. See
generally ECF No. 49-1. Because the Court has found no genuine issues of material fact, and that
SAS is entitled to summary judgment, Ms. Linnabary’s Motion must necessarily be denied.

C. The Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over Ms.
Linnabary’s State-Law Claims

Ms. Linnabary also brings two state-law claims: one under the Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act (FCEUA), 73 P.S. § 2270.4, and one under the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73 P.S. § 201. Because Ms. Linnabary’s FDCPA claims
are the only federal claims in the Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 26, and the Court has granted
summary judgment on all federal claims which Ms. Linnabary has standing to bring, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it “has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Therefore, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Linnabary’s FCEUA and UTPCPL claims and will
REMAND those claims to state court.
IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Linnabary’s § 1692f claim under the FDCPA is
REMANDED for lack of Article III standing. Further, SAS’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED with respect to the § 1692e § 1692g FDCPA claims and Ms. Linnabary’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED as to those claims. Accordingly, Ms. Linnabary’s §§ 1692e and
1692g claims under the FDCPA are DISMISSED with prejudice. Finally, because the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Linnabary’s related FCEUA and UTPCPL
claims, they are REMANDED to state court.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Christy Criswell Wiegand
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419386. Public record. Not legal advice.