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.

Okulovich v. Durham & Durham, LLP

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

October 2, 2017

ANTHONY OKULOVICH, Plaintiff,
v.
DURHAM & DURHAM, LLP, Defendant.

          ORDER

          HON. JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Durham & Durham, LLP's (“Durham”) Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 11], and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, [Filing No. 12]. Plaintiff Anthony Okulovich alleges that Durham sent him a deficient and misleading debt collection letter in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Durham's Motions.

         I.

         Legal Standard

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim that does not state a right to relief. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Active Disposal Inc. v. City of Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The Court may not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief. See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly state an entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises above the speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

         II.

         Background

         The following facts are drawn from Mr. Okulovich's Complaint, [Filing No. 1], and attached exhibit, [Filing No. 1-1], which are treated as true for the purpose of resolving Durham's Motion. E.g., Geinosky v. City of Chi., 675 F.3d 743, 745 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting that courts must consider “documents attached to the complaint” under Rule 12(b)(6)).

         Due to his long-term medical issues, Mr. Okulovich has incurred several debts for medical care. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] One such debt was placed with Durham for collection. [Filing No. 1-1 at 2.] At some point after Durham initially contacted Mr. Okulovich about the outstanding debt, it sent Mr. Okulovich a letter, dated April 25, 2016 (“Letter”). [Filing No. 1 at 2; Filing No. 1-1 at 2.] The Letter was printed on “Durham & Durham Attorneys at Law” letterhead and provided as follows:

         FINAL NOTICE - SETTLEMENT OFFER

         Dear Anthony Okulovich:

As addressed in our previous correspondence, medical services have been provided to you as noted above. To date, full payment has not been received for these services. This outstanding balance is your responsibility.
In order to close your file and remove your account from our systems, our firm is authorized to offer you a 30% discount on your outstanding balance. This settlement offer will allow you to clear this outstanding debt and enjoy a significant savings.
Return this form with the above referenced payoff amount or pay online . . . . Make your check or money order payable to Durham & Durham and upon receipt of your payment the account will be closed. The opportunity to take advantage of this settlement offer will expire thirty days from the date of this letter.
At this time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account. This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. If ...

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.