United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge
Castronovo believes that Phoenix Financial Services, LLC
engaged in unlawful collection practices when it sent her a
letter attempting to collect a debt. Phoenix claims that her
complaint should be dismissed because the language of the
collection letter would not confuse an objective
“unsophisticated consumer.” Dkt. . Finding
that Phoenix's letter would not confuse a significant
fraction of the population, the Court now
GRANTS Phoenix's motion to dismiss.
Facts and Background
Because Phoenix has moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6),
the Court accepts and recites “the well-pleaded facts
in the complaint as true.” McCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011).
Ms. Castronovo fell behind on medical debt owed to EPMG of
Indiana, Phoenix began collection attempts. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14.
On December 8, 2017, Phoenix sent Ms. Castronovo a letter
attempting to collect on the debt. Id. ¶ 15.
This notice is from a debt collector. This is an attempt to
collect a debt and any information obtained will be used to
collect the debt. Unless you notify this office within 30
days after receiving this notice that you dispute the
validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office
will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office, in
writing, within 30 days from receiving this notice that you
dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof,
this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a
copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or
verification. If you request of this office in writing within
30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide
you with the name and address of the original creditor, if
different from the current creditor.
same size font, the letter also said: “Please remit the
full balance(s), ” and “PLEASE DETACH BOTTOM
PORTION AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT.” Id.A
detachable payment coupon and a return envelope for
submitting payment accompanied the letter. Id.
Castronovo filed a complaint against Phoenix alleging that
the letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer
Sales Act (“IDCSA”) by misleadingly or
deceptively demanding the debt's immediate payment.
Phoenix moved to dismiss both counts. Dkt. 13.
defendant may move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss claims for “failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
a complaint must “contain 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 Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A facially
plausible claim is one that allows “the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court will “accept the
well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true, ” but will
not defer to “legal conclusions and conclusory
allegations merely reciting the elements of the claim.”
McCauley, 671 F.3d at 616.