JAMES v. WINDHAM PROFESSIONALS INC 25 (2020)

OPINION *

This appeal involves an alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Melissa James alleges Windham Professionals, Inc., a debt collection agency, violated the Act by including language in its debt collection letter that would leave the least sophisticated consumer uncertain about her rights. The District Court dismissed James's suit and she timely appealed.¹

James originally argued Windham's debt collection letter would confuse the least sophisticated consumer about whether she could dispute the debt in writing or by phone. James concedes this argument (as she must) given our recent decision interpreting § 1692(g) as allowing for both written and oral disputes of debts. Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2020) (en banc).

James now argues Windham's use of the term “Validation Notification” in the heading contained in the debt collection letter overshadowed the text of the letter such that the least-sophisticated consumer would believe the debt was already deemed valid. We disagree. The least sophisticated consumer standard “presum[es] a basic level of understanding and willingness to read with care on the part of the recipient.” Campuzano-Burgos v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 550 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The first sentence of the challenged notice tells the debtor that Windham would assume the debt valid unless she disputed its validity within thirty days—effectively mirroring the statutory language. The phrase “Validation Notification” cannot reasonably be understood to mean that the debt was already deemed valid. So we will affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court's order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim. Trzaska v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 865 F.3d 155, 159 (3rd Cir. 2017).

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.