United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
MICHAEL P. SHEA, U.S.D.J.
Leonard Sargolini (“Sargolini”) filed suit
against Century Financial Services, Inc. (“Century
Financial”), alleging that Century Financial sent him a
validation notice concerning a medical debt that did not
comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). Sargolini seeks
statutory damages as well as costs and reasonable
attorney's fees. Presently before the Court is
Sargolini's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 23. For
the reasons discussed below, this motion is DENIED.
argues that Century Financial sent him a collection letter
that was unduly contradictory as to his rights, but he failed
to file a Local Rule 56(a) statement to support his motion
for summary judgment on this ground. Nonetheless, the Court
has reviewed the operative complaint, the operative answer,
and supporting exhibits to determine whether there are any
undisputed facts. In the operative answer, Century Financial
admits only that it sent a validation notice to Sargolini
concerning a debt to Northeast Medical Group on or about July
24, 2018. ECF No. 21 at ¶ 5; ECF No. 22 at ¶ 5. The
front of this notice included the following text:
A COMMUNICATION FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.
ACCOUNT PLACED FOR COLLECTION.
Our records indicate that you already have an account(s) in
the amount of $25.78 placed with us for collection by
Northeast Medical Group. In some cases we had no choice but
to advise Northeast Medical Group that our past efforts have
been unsuccessful and that further contact will be necessary
in order to recover the balance(s) in full. In other cases we
have worked out a mutually agreeable payment plan. This
notice is to advise you that you have a right to dispute the
new account placed for collection in the amount of $33.81.
ECF No. 21 at 3. The front of the notice also explained that
the recipient should “SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT
INFORMATION.” Id. The back of the notice
included the following text:
Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving
this notice that you dispute the validity of this new account
placed for collection or any portion thereof, this office
will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in
writing within 30 days after receiving this notice that the
debt or any portion thereof is disputed, this office will
obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a
judgement and mail you a copy of such judgment verification.
If you request this office in writing within 30 days after
receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the
name and address of the original creditor, if different from
the current creditor.
Id. at 4. Because Century Financial admitted no
other allegations, and because Sargolini failed to file a
Rule 56(a) statement, the Court is unable to determine
whether any other facts are undisputed.
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of fact means that
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Wright v.
Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[A] party seeking summary
judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing
the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Once the moving
party has offered some evidence that no genuine issue of
material fact remains to be tried, the burden shifts to the
non-moving party to provide similar evidence indicating that
a genuine, triable issue remains.” Serby v. Town of
Hempstead, 2006 WL 2853869, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2006). In reviewing the record, the Court must
“construe the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw
all reasonable inferences against the movant.”
Beyer v. County of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d
Cir. 2008) (quoting Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air
Corp., 352 F.3d 775, 780 (2d Cir. 2003).