United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Eagle Accounts Group, Inc.’s (“Eagle Accounts”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (dkt. no. 11). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, DENIES the motion for the reasons set forth below.
In reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the Court applies the same standard that is applied when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Pisciotta v. Old Nat’l Bancorp., 499 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court “take[s] the facts alleged in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Id. The complaint must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While there is no need for detailed factual allegations, the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” and “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Pisciotta, 499 F.3d at 633 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff Tara Toction received a service from Northside Anesthesia Services on December 27, 2012. Ms. Toction, however, never paid her bill for that service, and the debt went into default. On October 3, 2013, Ms. Toction received a dunning letter from Eagle Accounts on behalf of Northside Anesthesia Services. The “current balance due” was $69.96 and the “Interest Due” was .00. Dkt. No. 1-3. The letter also contained the following language: “Because you may be charged interest, your account balance may be greater than the amount listed. When we receive your payment, we will inform you of any balance that may still be due.” Id.
Thereafter, on January 20, 2014, Ms. Toction received a second dunning letter from Eagle Accounts. The “BALANCE” and “Total Due” was still $69.96, and the “Interest Due” was .00. Dkt. No. 1-4. Thus, no interest accrued on her debt. The letter also contained the following language: “Because of interest that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater than the amount listed above. If that is the case, when we receive your payment, we will inform you of any adjustments prior to processing your payment.” Id.
Ms. Toction filed suit in this Court on May 5, 2014, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq. Specifically, she alleges that Eagle Accounts violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d-f “by misrepresenting that interest would continue to accrue when in fact no interest had ever accrued.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4.
Eagle Accounts’ motion is premised on its belief that Ms. Toction’s claims are foreclosed by Taylor v. Cavalry Inv., L.L.C., 365 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2004), which was consolidated with Schletz v. Acad. Collection Serv., Inc., a case involving facts very similar to the present matter. In the Schletz case, Academy Collection Service (“ACS”) was hired to collect credit card debt owed by the three plaintiffs. ACS sent each plaintiff a letter which included the following statement: “[I]f applicable, your account may have or will accrue interest at a rate specified in your contractual agreement with the original creditor.” Id. at 574. The credit card company, however, continued accruing interest against only one of the plaintiffs. “In the case of the other two plaintiffs, the creditors closed their accounts and upon doing so stopped adding interest, though presumably they could have continued doing so until the debts were paid.” Id.
Like Ms. Toction, the plaintiffs in Scheltz argued that, with regard to the two plaintiffs who were not charged interest, the interest statement was false and in violation of § 1692e. The Seventh Circuit quickly disposed of this claim, noting as follows: “The plaintiffs have an alternative claim that is downright frivolous-that the statement we quoted from the dunning letter is false, and so violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, because two of the creditors did not add interest. The letter didn’t say they would, only that they might.” Id.
Similarly, in Taylor, the plaintiff’s “main claim [was] that the  statement that ‘your account balance may be periodically increased due to the addition of accrued interest or other charges as provided in your agreement with your creditor’ [was] confusing.” Id. at 575. Again, the Seventh Circuit disagreed, noting that the statement was “no more confusing than the statement in the Schletz letter. It is the clear statement of a truism.” Id.
Based on Taylor, therefore, Eagle Accounts argues that because its “October 3, 2013, and January 20, 2014, letters to Plaintiff did not state that interest was going to be added to Plaintiff’s account, only that if interest was applicable, the amount owed might be greater than the amount listed, Plaintiff’s 1692e claim must fail.” Dkt. No. 12 at 6. This argument is persuasive. In fact, in Davis v. United Recovery Sys., LP, No. 1:14-cv-657-WTL-DML, 2014 WL 5530142 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2014), this Court recently relied on Taylor in addressing a very similar situation. In Davis, the dunning letter “contained the following statement: ‘Because your account may accrue interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the date you pay may be greater. If you pay the amount above an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check.’” Id. at *1. The plaintiff in Davis argued that because the dunning letter stated that interest may accrue-when in fact interest was not accruing-the defendant made a false statement in violation of the FDCPA. This Court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Taylor:
Taylor is clearly analogous to the present case. Here, Capital One apparently closed Davis’ account, and (apparently unbeknownst to Davis) her account stopped accruing interest. However, Capital One “presumably . . . could have continued [adding interest] until the debt was paid.” [Taylor, 365 F.3d at 575]. Thus, it was not false for URS to notify ...