Yuri Kolbasyuk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Capital Management Services, LP, Defendant-Appellee.
Argued: December 13, 2018
Yuri Kolbasyuk received a debt collection letter from
Defendant-Appellee Capital Management Services, LP
("CMS"). Kolbasyuk sued CMS under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq., but the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Cogan, J.) rejected
his claims. We hold that a debt collection letter that
informs the consumer of the total, present quantity of his or
her debt satisfies 15 U.S.C. § 1692g notwithstanding its
failure to inform the consumer of the debt's constituent
components or the precise rates by which it might later
increase. We further hold that such a letter does not violate
15 U.S.C. § 1692e for failure to inform the consumer
that his or her balance might increase due to interest or
fees when the letter contains the "safe harbor"
language previously ratified in Avila v. Riexinger &
Associates, LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant: Levi Huebner, Levi Huebner &
Associates, PC, Brooklyn, New York, for Yuri Kolbasyuk.
Defendant-Appellee: Kirsten H. Smith (Bryan C. Shartle, on
the brief), Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel LLC,
Metairie, Louisiana, for Capital Management Services, LP.
Before: Sack, Livingston, and Chin, Circuit Judges.
ANN LIVINGSTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692
et seq. ("FDCPA"), regulates certain
communications from debt collectors to consumers with
outstanding debts. Plaintiff-Appellant Yuri Kolbasyuk sought
to invoke the FDCPA's protections when he received a debt
collection letter from Defendant- Appellee Capital Management
Services, LP ("CMS"). The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Cogan,
J.) dismissed Kolbasyuk's claims under 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692e ("Section 1692e") and 1692g
("Section 1692g"). We hold that CMS's letter
complied with both provisions and therefore AFFIRM the
district court's dismissal of Kolbasyuk's claims.
owed a debt to Barclays Bank Delaware ("Barclays").
Barclays hired CMS to collect it. In an effort to accomplish
that task, CMS sent Kolbasyuk a dunning letter dated July 21,
2017. The letter stated the present amount of Kolbasyuk's
debt (about six thousand dollars) as well as the identity of
the original and current creditor (Barclays). The letter
contained CMS's address and contact information,
including a website at which Kolbasyuk could submit his
payment. The letter noted that it was a "communication .
. . from a debt collector." Joint App'x 22. It also
contained the following language:
As of the date of this letter, you owe $5918.69. Because of
interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from
day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.
Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may
be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we
will inform you before depositing the check for collection.
For more information, write the undersigned or call
receiving CMS's letter, Kolbasyuk filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. He alleged that the letter violated
Sections 1692e and 1692g of the FDCPA. According to
Kolbasyuk's complaint, the letter violated those
provisions because it failed to inform him, inter
alia, "what portion of the amount listed is
principal," "what 'other charges' might
apply," "if there is 'interest, '"
"when such interest will be applied," and
"what the interest rate is." Joint App'x 17.
Kolbasyuk also claimed that the letter conveyed the mistaken
impression "that the debt could be ...