finding a debt collector’s action of sending a “document [that] appears to be a recent credit-card bill, which it is not, and with few indications to the contrary” is a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether this document would deceive the least sophisticated consumer
How later courts described this case
- finding a debt collector’s action of sending a “document [that] appears to be a recent credit-card bill, which it is not, and with few indications to the contrary” is a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether this document would deceive the least sophisticated consumer
- suggesting that reasonable procedures might include “perform[ing] ongoing FDCPA training, procur[ing] the most recent case law, or hav[ing] an individual responsible for continuing compliance with the FDCPA”
- holding that where a jury could find that the least sophisticated consumer would be misled by a debt collection document, summary judgment for the defendant was improper under §§ 1692e and 1692f
- reversing a district court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether an exhibit filed in the state-court action would mislead the least sophisticated consumer
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OLIVER, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Moore’s opinion, but I write separately to discuss the way in which I find Great Seneca’s document to be potentially misleading to the least sophisticated consumer.
While this case presents a close call, I find that there is slightly more than a scintilla of evidence to support the argument that the least sophisticated consumer would be misled into thinking that this document was a credit card statement from Great Seneca Financial Corporation. As stated in the majority opinion, the document facially resembles that of a credit card statement, as it is arranged in a tabular format with boxes for credit limit, credit available, and new transactions similar to a legitimate credit card statement. Additionally, it includes boxes for the statement closing date and the date of the transaction. In these boxes, Great Seneca has included dates that are years after the individual consumers acquired their debt with Providian. The least sophisticated consumer, in reviewing this document, could be misled into believing that it was a credit card statement for an account with Great Seneca that involved transactions that occurred on the date listed. That consumer might then conclude that he or she never opened a credit card with Great Seneca and did not engage in any transactions with Great Seneca on such a date. This interpretation of the document would lead the least sophisticated consumer to disregard the statement as one merely issued in error. Accordingly, I concur that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether this statement would mislead the least sophisticated consumer.