Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Acevedo v. Pinnacle Credit Services, L.L.C.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 13, 2017

CRISTHIA M. ACEVEDO, Plaintiff,
v.
PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant.

          Edward B. Geller, Esq. Edward B. Geller, Esq., P.C. Bronx, NY Counsel for Plaintiff

          Daniel Ginzburg The Ginzburg Law Firm, P.C. Old Bridge, N.J. Counsel for Defendant

          OPINION & ORDER

          KENNETH M. KARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Cristhia M. Acevedo ("Plaintiff) brings this putative Class Action against Pinnacle Credit Services, L.L.C. ("Defendant"), alleging that Defendant engaged in unlawful credit and collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1.) Before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion"). (Dkt. No. 10.) For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         The following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs Complaint and are taken as true for the purpose of resolving the instant Motion.

         Around June 2015, Defendant reported to the credit reporting agencies that Plaintiff had an outstanding debt. (Compl. ¶ 23 (Dkt. No. 1).)[1] Plaintiff hired Asset Protection and Management, Inc. ("Asset Protection") to represent her in inquiring about and challenging the debt. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.) On July 20, 2015, Whitney Reyes ("Reyes"), an Asset Protection employee, called Defendant and was connected to a recorded greeting which stated that Defendant uses outside services to collect debts and that Defendant regularly updates credit reports but could not guarantee how quickly the credit reporting agencies would amend credit reports to reflect those updates. (Id. ¶ 25.) After the recording finished, Reyes was transferred to Defendant's employee. (Id. ¶ 26.) The employee stated that Plaintiffs account was being handled by Diversified Consultants. (Id. ¶ 27.) Reyes asked the employee if Plaintiff could dispute her account with Defendant. (Id.) In response, the employee said, "We don't handle the accounts here. You have to talk to the agencies." (Id. ¶ 28.) After Reyes asked the employee when Plaintiffs account would be updated, the employee stated, "That's all the information I can give you. Did you listen to the recording before you were transferred over ma'am? It does explain that information to you." (Id. ¶ 29.)

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FDCPA by reporting Plaintiffs debt to the credit reporting agencies, but then when Plaintiff contacted Defendant to dispute the debt, "claimed deceptively and deceitfully that no information was available and no dispute could be recorded." (Id. ¶ 32.) Defendant also allegedly violated the FDCPA by "unfairly and unconsciously" directing Plaintiff to contact Diversified Consultants. (Id. ¶ 34.)

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff commenced this putative Class Action against Defendant on December 15, 2015, alleging violations of the FDCPA. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to a briefing schedule adopted by the Court on April 5, 2016, (Dkt. No. 9), Defendant filed its Motion and supporting papers on April 15, 2016, (Dkt. Nos. 10-12). Plaintiff filed her opposition on June 9, 2016, (Dkt. No. 16), and Defendant filed its reply on June 7, 2016, (Dkt. No. 15).[2]

         II. Discussion

         A. Applicable Law

         1. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.