United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[DKT. 34]
Hon.
Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge
Plaintiff,
Deborah Cobb, brings suit against Enhanced Recovery Company
(“ERC”) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 alleging
that ERC violated § 1692e(14) of the Act, which
prohibits “the use of any . . . name other than the
true name of the debt collector's business, company, or
organization.” [Dkt. 10 (Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint)]. Plaintiff alleges that ERC sent a letter to
Plaintiff referring to itself as “ERC” rather
than “Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, ” which is
ERC's “true name.” [Id. at ¶
10]. Defendant brings this Motion for Judicial Notice, asking
the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff's license
records from the National Multistate Licensing System (NMLS),
which indicate that Plaintiff is registered under the trade
names “Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC” and
“ERC.” [Dkt. 34 (Motion for Judicial Notice);
Dkt. 34-1 (Exhibit 1)]. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing
that the website is irrelevant, the website is hearsay, and
that it lacks reliability. [Dkt. 38 (Memo. in Opposition to
Mot. for Judicial Notice)].
Legal
Standard
“The
court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). The
Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it
and the court is supplied with the necessary
information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2). “[C]aution
must be used in determining that a fact is beyond controversy
under Rule 201(b).” Int'l Star Class Yacht
Racing Ass'n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146
F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1998). Courts may take judicial notice
of information contained on websites where “the
authenticity of the site has not been questioned.”
Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Union, Local 100 of
New York, N.Y. & Vicinity, AFL CIO v. City of New York
Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534, 549
(2d Cir. 2002).
Courts
routinely take judicial notice of license records. See
Massachusetts v. Westcott, 431 U.S. 322, 323 n. 2 (1977)
(taking judicial notice of a vessel's license to fish for
mackerel); Fernandez v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc.,
2016 WL 2903274 at *3 (S. D. N.Y.May 18, 2016) (taking
judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiffs were
accredited and certified to operate as Second Language
Schools in New York). In particular, other courts have taken
judicial notice of license records on the NMLS website.
See Cruz, 2017 WL 5195225 at *3; Ademiluyi v.
PennyMac Mortg. Inv. Tr. Holdings I, LLC, 929 F.Supp.2d
502, 510 (D. Md. 2013); Chenault v. Cobb, No.
13-CV-03828-MEJ, 2014 WL 4607484 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15,
2014) (taking judicial notice of NMLS online records because
it is a “matter[ ] of public record, provided by a
government agency for public review”).
“On
timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the
propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the
fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before
notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled
to be heard.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(e). Plaintiff has had
notice of Defendant's request that the Court take
judicial notice as Defendant made its request in a motion.
See [Dkt. 34]. Plaintiff has also had an opportunity
to be heard as she filed an opposition to Defendant's
motion. See [Dkt. 38].
Analysis
The
NMLS records are relevant because “[t]he name under
which a debt collector is licensed to do business in the
state of Connecticut is the debt collector's true name
for the purposes of the FDCPA.” Kizer v. Am. Credit
& Collection, No. B-90-78 (TFD), 1990 WL 317475 at
*6 (D. Conn. Dec. 17, 1990). See also Beider v. Retrieval
Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.¸146 F.Supp.3d 465,
470 (E. D. N.Y.2015) (name under which debt collector was
licensed in New York City was its true name for the purposes
of the FDCPA); Cruz v. Credit Control Services, No.
2:17-cv-1994 (ADS) (GRB), 2017 WL 5195225 at *7 (E. D.
N.Y.November 8, 2017) (holding that name used by debt
collector operating in Freeport, New York was its “true
name” for FDCPA purposes where debt collector was
licensed under that name in New York City and Massachusetts);
Boyko v. American Int'l Group, Inc., No.
8-cv-2214 (RBK/JS), 2009 WL 5194431 at *7 (D. N. J. Dec. 23,
2009) (“the Court is persuaded that a collector's
‘true name' includes the collector's legal name
(i.e. the registered corporate or LLC name with the
state) as well as the name under which it is licensed to do
business”). Therefore, information about Connecticut
license records is probative on whether ERC violated the
“true name” provision of § 1692e(14).
The
accuracy of the NMLS records cannot reasonably be questioned
because it is the state-designated repository for licensing
records. Connecticut law allows the Connecticut Department of
Banking to require licenses for entities in the financial
services industry. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §
36a-24b(b) (authorizing the state banking commissioner to
“require persons engaged in a financial services
industry subject to the commissioner's jurisdiction to be
licensed or registered through the system” and stating,
in relevant part, that if “the commissioner elects to
require system-based licensure . . . the commissioner shall
require all initial or renewal applications for such licenses
or registrations in this state to be made and processed
through the system in such form as the commissioner may
prescribe, and the system shall be authorized to receive and
maintain records related to such licenses or registrations to
the same extent allowed or required to be maintained by the
commissioner.”). The Connecticut Department of Banking
website directs consumers to the NMLS records “[t]o
verify that a consumer collection agency is licensed to do
business in Connecticut.” Consumer Collection
Agencies Licensed in Connecticut, CT.gov,
https://portal.ct.gov/DOB/Consumer-Credit-Licenses/Consumer-Credit-Licenses/Consumer-Collection-Agencies-Licensed-in-Connecticut
(last visited February 11, 2019). Plaintiff does not present
the Court with any “reasonable questions” about
accuracy of the NMLS online license records.
Conclusion
The
[Dkt. 34] Motion for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. The Court
takes judicial notice ...