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.

Isaac v. NRA Group, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 28, 2018

Aldean Isaac and Julissa Ortiz, Plaintiff,
v.
NRA Group, LLC d/b/a National Recovery Agency and Steven C. Kusic, Defendants.

          Plaintiffs are represented by Craig B. Sanders, David M. Barshay, and Jonathan Mark Cader of Sanders Law, PLLC, and Todd D. Muhlstock of the Muhlstock Law Firm PC.

          Defendants are represented by Hilary Felice Korman of Warshaw Burstein LLP, and Scott Evan Wortman and Jacquelyn Alena DiCicco of Blank Rome LLP

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge:

         Plaintiffs Aldean Isaac (“Isaac”) and Julissa Ortiz (“Ortiz” and, together with Isaac, “plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against NRA Group, LLC (“NRA”) and NRA's chief executive officer, Steven C. Kusic (“Kusic” and, together with NRA, “defendants”), for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. Plaintiffs assert two causes of action against both NRA and Kusic. The first cause of action alleges that debt collection letters sent by NRA to plaintiffs misrepresented the amount of debt that plaintiffs owed in violation of FDCPA Sections 1692g and 1692e. The second cause of action alleges that defendants violated FDCPA Sections 1692e and 1692f because the same collection letters falsely implied that NRA had the legal right to collect interest and fees from plaintiffs. Presently before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, as against NRA. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.

         I. Background

         A. Facts

         The Court takes the following facts from the parties' Rule 56.1 Statements of Fact, affidavits, and exhibits, and construes the facts in the light most favorable to NRA as the nonmoving party. See Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Unless otherwise indicated, the facts are either undisputed or uncontroverted by admissible evidence.

         At some unspecified time, both Isaac and Ortiz incurred debt to Peconic Bay Medical Center (“Peconic”). (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 3.) Thereafter, Peconic assigned the debts to NRA for collection. (Id. ¶ 5.)

         NRA asserts that it sent debt collection letters dated August 20, 2015 to both plaintiffs (“the August 2015 letters”).[1](Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 8, 18; Chille Aff. ¶¶ 6-9, Exs. B, C.) The August 2015 letter addressed to Ortiz indicates that she owes $1, 254.93 for services rendered by Peconic on June 9, 2013, with an account number ending in 6681. (Chille Aff. Ex. C.) A detachable payment slip at the bottom of the letter states a “total due” of $1, 254.93. (Id.) Ortiz does not dispute that this letter states an accurate amount owed. (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 14.)

         The August 2015 letter addressed to Isaac includes amounts owed for two separate dates of service. (Chille Aff. Ex. B.) Specifically, it states that Isaac owes $145.96 for services rendered by Peconic on August 9, 2013, with an account number ending in 3930, and $1, 139.56 for services rendered by Peconic on August 19, 2013, with an account number ending in 0322. (Id.) A detachable payment slip at the bottom of the letter indicates that Isaac's “total due” is $1, 285.52. (Id.) Isaac does not dispute that these amounts are accurate. (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 11.)

         NRA sent plaintiffs additional collection letters dated September 23, 2015 (“the September 2015 letters”). (Compl. Ex. 1.) The September 2015 letter to Ortiz repeats the information contained in the August 2015 letter: that she owes $1, 254.93 for services rendered by Peconic on June 9, 2013, with an account number ending in 6681. (Chille Aff. Ex. F.) Immediately beneath that information, however, the September 2015 letter states that Ortiz owes the same amount- $1, 254.93-for services rendered by Peconic on “00/00/00, ” with the same account number ending in 6681. (Id.) The detachable payment slip at the bottom of the letter indicates that Ortiz's “total due” is $2, 509.86, or double $1, 254.93. (Id.)

         Similarly, the September 2015 letter to Isaac repeats the information contained in the August 2015 letter addressed to him: that he owes $145.96 for services rendered by Peconic on August 9, 2013, with an account number ending in 3930, and $1, 139.56 for services rendered by Peconic on August 19, 2013, with an account number ending in 0322. (Chille Aff. Ex. E.) Immediately beneath that information, the letter states that Isaac owes the same amount-$145.96-for services rendered by Peconic on “00/00/00, ” with the same account number ending in 3930, and the same amount-$1, 139.56-for services rendered by Peconic on “00/00/00, ” with the same account number ending in 0322. (Id.) The detachable payment slip at the bottom of the letter indicates that Isaac's “total due” is $2, 571.04. (Id.)

         According to NRA, the duplicate information was included in the September 2015 letters because it was mistakenly included in an excel spreadsheet received from Peconic Bay. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 18-20.) When NRA received the spreadsheet with the duplicate information, its system automatically processed the information and ...


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.