Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
SHAPIRO v. RIDDLE & ASSOCIATES
January 15, 2003
STEVEN SHAPIRO. PLAINTIFF,
V.
RIDDLE & ASSOCIATES. P.C., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge
This is an action for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the "FDCPA").*fn1 There are no issues of fact, and the
parties have cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has moved also
for class certification. In view of the disposition of the
cross-motions, there is no need to address the class certification
motion.
Defendant Riddle & Associates, P.C. ("Riddle") was retained to
recover $309.76 owed to its client by plaintiff Steven Shapiro pursuant
to a contract that provided, inter alia, that:
"[i]f we are required to use a collection agency or
attorney to collect money that you owe to us . . .,
you agree to pay the reasonable cost of collection or
other action. These costs might include, but are not
limited to, the costs of the collection agency,
reasonable attorney fees, and court costs."*fn2
On or about April 30, 2001, Riddle sent plaintiff a letter containing the
following language:
"If you want to resolve this matter without a
lawsuit, you must either pay the Total Amount Due
listed above (unless it has already been paid) or call
our firm at 1-800-225-5050 and work out arrangements
for payment. If you do neither of these things, our
client will be entitled to file a lawsuit against you
for collection of this debt. No decision has been made
to file a law suit. If legal action is taken and a law
suit is filed, it will be handled by an attorney
licensed in your state.
"Federal law gives you thirty days after you receive
this letter to dispute the validity of the debt or any
part of it. If you don't dispute it within that
period, we will assume it is valid. If you do dispute
it — by notifying our firm in writing to that
effect — we will, as required by law, obtain and
mail to you proof of the debt. And if, within the same
period, you request in writing the name and address of
your original creditor, if the original creditor is
different from the current creditor, we will furnish
you with that information too.
"The law does not require our client to wait until the
end of the thirty-day period before suing you to
collect this debt. If, however, you request proof of
the debt or the name and address of the original
creditor within the thirty-day period that begins with
your receipt of this letter, the law requires our firm
to suspend our efforts (through litigation
or otherwise) to collect the debt until we mail the
requested information to you.
"This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information
obtained will be used for that purpose. This
communication is from a debt collector."*fn3
The letter sought recovery of, in addition to the debt owed by
plaintiff, a $98 attorney/collection cost.*fn4
Plaintiff advances two theories on which, he claims, the letter
violated the FDCPA. First, he maintains that the inclusion of the $98
attorney collection cost charge constituted a false representation that
the plaintiff was subject to a collection charge that was, in fact,
illegal. Second. he argues that the letter, taken as a whole, violated
the FDCPA's validation provision, which requires notice to the debtor ...