ISAAC v. NRA GROUP LLC (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Aldean Isaac and Julissa Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Bianco, J.) dismissing their claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., against NRA Group, LLC (NRA) and Steven C. Kusic, NRA’s chief executive officer. On appeal, Isaac and Ortiz argue that the District Court erred in concluding, on summary judgment, that the debt-collection letters that they received from NRA did not violate Section 1692g of the FDCPA. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

As relevant to our resolution of this appeal, the FDCPA requires debt collectors to correctly identify “the amount of ․ debt” owed in their “initial communication with a consumer” or in a “written notice” sent up to five days thereafter. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a); see Hart v. FCI Lender Servs., Inc., 797 F.3d 219, 228 (2d Cir. 2015). NRA argued to the District Court and argues on appeal that the September collection letters about which Isaac and Ortiz complained fail to qualify as initial communications subject to Section 1692g because Isaac and Ortiz were sent accurate debt-collection letters earlier on August 20, 2015. In support of this argument, NRA produced the August letters to Isaac and Ortiz during discovery and expressly stated in its two Rule 56.1 Statements that the August letters were sent. See Joint App’x 148–49, 196, 198–201, 1140–41. In response, Isaac and Ortiz failed to adduce admissible evidence in the form of “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, [or] stipulations” denying that the letters were sent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). When given the opportunity to do so on appeal, Isaac and Ortiz were unable to point to any other admissible evidence demonstrating that the August letters had not been sent. See Oral Argument at 28:42–29:15, 33:08–34:10, Isaac v. NRA Grp., LLC (No. 19-1227-cv), http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions. It is true that the District Court characterized “whether the September 2015 letters were initial communications subject to Section 1692g” as a “factual issue.” Special App’x at 6 n.6. But Isaac and Ortiz failed to raise a genuine factual dispute under Rule 56 that the accurate August letters, not the incorrect September letters, constitute the initial communications in this case. We therefore reject their claims under Section 1692g.

We have considered Isaac and Ortiz’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.