United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
....................................................................................................
3
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT: THE PARTIES
..................................................................................
6
III.
FINDINGS OF FACT: THE LETTER
...................................................................................
6
A. The
Nature of the Letter
.................................................................................................
7
B. The
Two Balances
........................................................................................................
11
IV.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: MATERIALLY MISLEADING STATEMENT
.................... 11
A.
Misleading Statement
...................................................................................................
11
B.
Material Statement
.......................................................................................................
13
V.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: BONA FIDE
ERROR………………………………………….15
A.
First Prong of the Bona Fide Error
Defense…………………………………………..15
B.
Second Prong of the Bona Fide Error
Defense………………………………………..16
C.
Third Prong of the Bona Fide Error
Defense………………………………………….19
VI.
DAMAGES…………………………………………………………………………………22
VII.
CONCLUSION
.....................................................................................................................
27
Luis
Garcia (“Plaintiff”) sued the Law Offices Howard
Lee Schiff, P.C. (“Schiff firm” or
“Defendant”), alleging a violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et
seq. (“FDCPA”).
Following
a one-day bench trial, the Court now sets forth its findings
of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(a)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1).
As
explained below, the Court finds that Defendant sent a
materially misleading letter to Mr. Garcia in violation of
the FDCPA, and that Defendant is not entitled to the bona
fide error defense to strict liability under the FDCPA. Mr.
Garcia therefore has established an entitlement to damages
under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.
Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS Judgement for Mr. Garcia
and AWARDS $500 in statutory damages, but
DENIES any other relief, except for
attorney's fees and costs.
Mr.
Garcia may file a motion for attorney's fees and costs by
August 30, 2019. Defendant may respond by
September 20, 2019 and any reply to any
response shall be due by September 27, 2019.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May
23, 2016, Mr. Garcia sued Defendant, alleging that he had
received a debt collection letter from the Schiff firm on or
around February 12, 2016. Compl. ¶ 9. Mr. Garcia claimed
that the wording of the letter “ma[de] it impossible
for a consumer to know how much is owed and if the debt will
be considered paid if payment is made in full.”
Id. ¶ 13.
On June
14, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss the case. Mot. to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 9. On June 30,
2016, Mr. Garcia opposed the motion to dismiss. Mem. of Law
in Opp. to Def. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13.
On
March 30, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Ruling on Def. Mot. to
Dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss claims under
15 U.S.C. § 1692(d) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f), found
that Mr. Garcia had not stated a claim under 15 U.S.C. §
1692(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §
1692(e)(7) and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(e)(8), but denied
the motion to dismiss claims for violations of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692(e) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)(10). Id.
On
April 12, 2017, Defendant filed its Answer. Answer, ECF No.
19.
On July
7, 2017, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Mot. for Summ.
J., ECF No. 31.
On
August 3, 2017, Mr. Garcia moved to amend or correct his
responses to Defendant's Requests for Admissions,
Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Pl. First Mot.
for Withdrawal and Amend. of Responses to Admissions, ECF No.
35. The next day, Mr. Garcia opposed summary judgment. Mem.
in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 37.
On
February 21, 2018, the Court granted Mr. Garcia's motion
to amend or correct his responses, denied Defendant's
motion for summary judgment without prejudice, and set an
amended discovery schedule. Ruling on Mot. for Summ. J. and
Mot. to Withdraw Admissions, ECF No. 41.
On July
26, 2018, Defendant again moved for summary judgment. Mot.
for Summ. J., ECF No. 56.
On
August 3, 2018, Mr. Garcia moved for summary judgment. Mot.
for Summ. J., ECF No. 57.
On
August 16, 2018, Mr. Garcia opposed Defendant's motion
for summary judgment. Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF
No. 58.
On
August 24, 2018, Defendant opposed Mr. Garcia's motion
for summary judgment, Mem. in Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF
No. 59, and moved to strike the affidavits of Luis Garcia.
Mot. to Strike Affidavits of Luis Garcia, ECF No. 60.
On
December 13, 2018, the Court convened a hearing on the
pending motions. Min. Entry, ECF No. 68.
On
December 14, 2018, the Court denied the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment and Defendant's motion
to strike. Ruling on Mots. for Summ. J. and to Strike
Affidavits, ECF No. 69.
On
January 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion in limine
to preclude Mr. Garcia from introducing any evidence that had
not been disclosed during discovery, Def. Mot. in
Limine, ECF No. 71, and set a February 18, 2019 response
deadline on the docket.
On
February 1, 2019, the parties filed the Joint Trial
Memorandum (“JTM”). Joint Trial Mem., ECF No. 74.
On
February 19, 2019, Mr. Garcia filed his opposition to the
motion in limine. Pl. Resp. in Opp. to Def. Mot.
in Limine, ECF No. 75.
On
February 25, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike
Plaintiff's opposition as untimely. Mot. to Strike Pl.
Opp. to Def. Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 76.
Three
days later, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's
opposition to the motion in limine. Def. Resp. to
Pl. Opp. to Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 77.
On May
10, 2019, the Court issued a ruling denying without prejudice
to renewal Defendant's motions in limine. Ruling
on Motions in Limine, ECF No. 79.
The
Court scheduled a bench trial for May 20, 2019. Notice, ECF
No. 78.
On May
20, 2019, the Court held a bench trial. During the trial, two
witnesses testified: Mr. Garcia and Karen Wisniowski,
Defendant's managing partner. Tr. of Proceedings
(“Tr.”) at 8:5-12; 35:17-23. Two exhibits were
marked for admission and one exhibit was admitted into
evidence. Tr. 33:7-19; 115: 6-13.
On May
31, 2019, Defendant filed its proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Def. Proposed Finding of Fact and
Conclusions of Law (“Def. Post-Trial Findings”),
ECF No. 89.
On June
7, 2019, Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant's
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pl. Opp. to Def.
Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Pl.
Post-Trial Opp.”), ECF No. 90.
On June
13, 2019, Defendant responded to Plaintiff's opposition.
Def. Resp. to Pl. Opp. to the Proposed Finding of Fact and
Conclusions of Law ...